Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Sunday, August 27, 2000 - 03:40 pm  Can anyone suggest an insurance company for the above that does not require a FICO score in order to get coverage. Metropolitan does. GEICO now does also. this is getting really really unreal.Thanks
|
| | Monday, August 28, 2000 - 07:06 am I have AAA renters and will be getting homeowners next month (paperwork in process). I also use them for car insurance. I don't have a single inquiry from them on my credit report and have never given any sort of approval to pull my credit file.
|
| | Monday, August 28, 2000 - 04:38 pm Is that American Automobile Association? (AAA)?
|
| | Tuesday, August 29, 2000 - 09:45 pm yep - the one that EVERYBODY has a membership to... (free towing, unlocking your car... a few times a year.)
|
| | Wednesday, August 30, 2000 - 01:35 am thanks for the tip.
|
| | Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 04:42 pm I think Allstate also doesn't require a credit check.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:42 am I told Metropolitan (Snoopy) via a letter terminating my policy that it was due to the use of FICO scores which have no basis for insurance purposes. Not that one voice will make a difference but many can. Tell your friends not to allow FICO for insurance. Recommend others who do not use it.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 09:11 pm I am new to the forum and just wanted to add and FYI-just started auto/homeowners insurance with Allstate in 08/00. Credit report in 09/00 shows Allstate as an inquiry.
|
| | Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:42 pm That's interesting. I've had Allstate for so many years, don't know if they ran my credit when I first applied. However, I haven't seen an Allstate inquiry in the last ten years or so. I have added drivers whose credit was AWFUL and I had no problems or rate increases. Maybe they just don't use Credit Scoring. BTW, just because I've had Allstate forever doesn't mean that I'm happy with their insurance, nearly sued them last year. A few times I tried to get quotes from other companies, and they all were going to run my credit. So I'm still with Allstate. Banks usually run your credit when you open a checking account, yet they don't base the checking fees or interest rates on your Credit Score. I think that's the issue. I really see nothing wrong with an insurance company running your credit AFTER you decided that their quote and coverage is what you want. The problem is that most auto insurance companies now RATE you according to your Credit Score.
|
| | Monday, September 18, 2000 - 04:42 pm They may not have grandfathered their scoring policy; that is, they may only score new prospective customers, yet leave their long-time ones alone. However, I agree with Senator. I think credit scoring and insurance policies don't mix whatsoever. It is WRONG. I am not aware, BTW, of any credit related information asked of anyone in Canada regarding the major types of insurance markets. (crossing my virtual fingers :^) It is WRONG. FIGHT this.
|
| | Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 02:25 am update: AAA does run the credit report. I went to their offices last night, sat with an agent, and he informed me that they won't underwrite anyone with less than 500 FICO. he believes they use Equifax (CSC). This is a bummer since I refuse to use any firm that uses FICO as a matter of principal. On to allstate although I have heard nothing but bad things about them.
|
| | Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 11:50 am Why does my freaking credit have to be brought into getting auto insurance? Isn't my driving record enough for these people? This should be completely illegal! Do they run credit for health as well? Shouldn't my medical records be enough for acceptance/denial? This is becoming ridiculous.
|
| | Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 02:00 am This is what is scary and i believe that health insurance will be next. they will utilize my FICO in creating a profile of someone who will abuse or create fraudulent medical claims. With the home insurance, they claim that people with low FICO are more likely than not to make false insurance claims. What BS! People who file bankruptcy are more likely,in my opinion, to be honest about facing what life has dealt them. This is an issue that needs to be some part of a protection package for citizens. unfortunately, it won't be.
|
| | Friday, September 29, 2000 - 02:22 pm Why not (unless one is secretly lobbying the FTC)? Yes, with enough pressure the FCRA can be changed. In much of Europe, this kind of nonsense is shot and skinned for what it is -- consumer abuse without right to a fair trial. They are judged electronically with arbitrary rules that in their own nature are discriminatory. For this matter, we need to have this done: Outlaw credit scoring companies that don't provide the exact formulae for any scoring. Have ONE CENTRAL CREDIT repository controlled strictly by government (maybe the IRS?) Have a secondary watchdog whose rulings are BINDING on this CRA. Have a tertiary tribunal (credit court) system, presided over by a judge and jury panel or equivalent, should an appeal be wished. Have the central CRA give FREE ONLINE ACCESS INSTANTLY for all authorized credit report requests. Ensure stiff jail and monetary penalties for fraud artists and companies who don't play by the rules (like those investigated by the Securites/Exchange Commission) Prohibit the CRA from generating any scores, but hold any creditor responsible for their chosen scoring system and full evaluation disclosures. Ensure that all INSURANCE COMPANIES, all others of the major pillars of the nation's financial system and any others who are NOT creditors are PROHIBITED from using any kind of credit record access and/or scoring for ANY of their products unless it is specifically a lending product. Until these and other measures are in place, the bandying about of personal information with no accountability will continue to the benefit of those who profit from these loopholes.
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 03:25 am the idea of a central repository of credit data is not the answer IMO. I think we need a consumer bill of rights with the burden of defending any credit information solely placed on the cra and not the individual. the individual should have the right to remove any items with documentation and heavy heavy penalties on the cra for continuing to have inaccurate unverifiable information. I still have a discover on one of the reports that still shows an outstanding amount that has been verified almost 4 times in the last year when challenged. I have the paperwork that shows it was settled and there is no outstanding balance. the bs is costing me a lawyer to deal with them since I am fed up. the only satisfaction is watching the average 4-5 deletions occur every time we challenge negative items.
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 01:14 pm O.K., sir, you did not read the rest of my post. I suggested the central repository idea with tribunal and full appelate provisions to protect it from abuse of power. The jury would consist of peers and ones who have had hard times dealing with the CRAs, and the tribunal would be a separate non-government elected entity (this would be perhaps extended to be a full consumer advocacy tribunal for all wrongful consumer treatment matters. Why go through THREE sets of reports, THREE lawsuits, THREE correction requests, etc. etc.? Christ, at least Canada has only TWO! Even in your own posting you outline the consummate frustration you have dealt with and continue to do so in through this flawed system, which would include having to deal with plural reports. And, most certainly, I agree there MUST be due diligence and attention paid by the employees of any CRA; in fact, above and beyond since they serve the public, too (but the problem is that the consumer is seen as a data item, and the lenders, etc., are the customers).
|
| | Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 06:53 pm Why do Auto insurance companies run credit scores? I'm with allstate and they asked do you have bad credit? If you do you get a higher rate. What's with that?
|
| | Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 03:35 am Yes, you do get a higher rate or denied coverage altogether if your scores are low enough. Their reasoning for this is simple: If you have bad credit, then you have shown poor financial responsibility. They take this to mean that you will drive irresponsiblily as well or that you will not take care of your home so it will burn down easier, etc. There is absolutly NO correlation, in my opinon, between credit and how one manages their other affairs. Bad credit does not mean that you are a bad driver, etc. I agree with the posts above that auto insurance rates should be based SOLELY on your driving record and nothing else.
|
| | Monday, October 02, 2000 - 06:38 pm For an insurance industry's perspective, an actuarial paper on insurance credit scoring is online at http://www.casact.org/pubs/forum/00wforum/00wf079.pdf
|
| | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 10:11 am I just changed to 21st century Insurance. IT is a California only company, but there was NO credit check. -Dan
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 12:43 pm FWIW, we switched from Geico to State Farm, and as far as I know there hasn't been an inquiry done - we were never asked about our credit, but haven't had a chance to check the credit reports yet (since the switch was recent); and our rates dropped in half, but that's a whole other story. We're a bit upset with Geico, as is, but again that's another story (that may be posted here soon, once we receive this "final bill" that they claim they've mailed us).
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 04:38 pm Wow, I must have heard literally hundreds of Geico radio ads from AZ to Alaska and back this summer, hyping their low rates. I'd appreciate your posting with your Geico experience.
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 05:31 pm I'm actually starting to write up a piece for Epinions regarding our experience with Geico, but I'll try to sum up (since I still haven't gotten the "final bill" that was mailed out supposedly on the 6th). Instead of going down, our rates were steadily incresed roughly $20 per each 6-month installment. We paid every month (splitting the payment in half and paying twice a month, since they wanted their money pretty much the same day rent was due), and often paid more than their minimum payment. Geico regularly automatically renewed our policy, whether we wanted them to or not. This last time (coverage period 03 Mar 2000 to 03 Sept 2000) was _paid in full_ as of 15 July 2000. Rather than renew our policy in September, when the current one ran out, they renewed it then, on the spot. Silly us for actually paying our policy early. So we receive a "statement" in August: current balance as of 31 July: $862. (Again, silly us for paying our current policy BEFORE the 6 months were up). Payment due: 12 August 2000. To quote my husband, "Um, no. We don't owe til 3 Sept 2000, because we're already covered for the month of August" (and somehow, we have the sneaky suspiscion that had we paid the 3 Sept 2000-3 Mar 2001 policy a month early, they'd sock us with yet more payments for the *next* policy; but I'm getting ahead of myself). According to this "statement" we owed them $147 for the month of August. We decided we'd do our usual "split the payment into 2 parts" thing, since that's worked best for us, and they had no problems with it. So 31 Aug 2000 we send them a $100 payment (oh yes, and they were quite quick to get a "you didn't pay us, you now owe $293 by Sept 5th" out - within 10 days of the "original" payment date they wanted). Apparently, making that payment wasn't good enough for them, and within a week, I received a "if you don't pay up by 24 Sept, your policy will be cancelled" email from them (they would have gotten the rest of their money on the 15th. I suppose their computers just assumed we ditched a month, even tho we weren't covered under that policy at the time). I'm rambling horridly, and don't know if this is making any sense at all. My husband got fed up, fed up even more with the cost of our insurance (at this point, the only "accident" we'd had involved a dented door; significantly minor damage to the other person's car (the door), and no damage to ours). We went up to State Farm, and with _BETTER_ coverage, our rates dropped from $862 to $445 (and yes, State Farm does know about the dented door incident). I'm curious to see what their "final bill" will be, since we were only covered under the 03 Sept 2000 - 03 March 2000 policy for a whopping 22 days. Pro-rated (862.10 / 211 (total # of days Sept - end of March) * 22), comes to _less_ than the payment we sent them. Had we received a bill in August for payments to start in SEPTEMBER, it would have been one thing. At the time, we were in no way able to shell out the $150 to pre-pay the next policy. Heck, even State Farm only took the first month's payment. We don't pay them again til October (and we got to set the payment date). I've dug out all the files, so I can list coverage totals if you want. The woman at State Farm said that part of our problem was that Geico stuck us with their "Middle Company," which was why our rates were so high. She sat down with us and explained out every little coverage (unlike Geico who just said 'here' over the phone).
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 06:46 pm Wow. Yeah, write that up when you get your final bill, and send a copy to your insurance commissioner. As I'm typing, I hear another Geico commercial ....
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 07:31 pm Geico sucks. I went to them expecting low rates and wow were they high!
|
| | Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 09:45 pm I just heard "Geico" on the radio while concentrating on something else, so I missed the beginning. It was about Geico first contributing towards radar guns, then giving free radar guns to the police, so people get more tickets, and Geico can raise premiums. It was an Earthlink internet commercial.
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 01:55 am Geico used to be a good company. In the neverending drive to raise profit percentages, I believe that they now reinsure everything through Transamerica--at least that is what they are doing with their homeowners or just "private labeling" perhaps. What is critical is that no FICO appears to be the rule for State Farm. Now state farm has a bad reputation for cancelling policies for accidents but I don't know if that is true. It does not enjoy a sterling reputation. At least, however, it does insure based on driving records. P.S. Christine, I've added some political philosophy to the personal profile. As an added note, I have been able to delete over 30 negative entries to my 3 credit bureau reports. I have suspended the lawyers because it looks like a budget tightening is needed due to reorganization. Looking for a new position again. Amerika, what have you become for your tired and weary?
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 12:53 pm Hey all, After looking at my credit reports, I have never seen an inquiry from state farm. Been with them for quite a while. They are good. No accidents so I don't know about the above comment concerning accidents. I would like to re affirm that Geico DOES give radar detectors to the police (confirmed by a police officer in VA. Beach). They have a nice HUGE office on the Boulevard here in the resort city. As stated above, it appears that their aim is to increase the number of tickets that police hand out so that they can raise rates, etc. They claim to have low rates but they cannot touch state farm insurance co. Does anybody know if USAA uses FICO? Their rates are supposedly lower than State Farm. Later Mike
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 01:02 pm I forgot to add to my previous post - Geico was more than fast to remove the online account, too. Despite the fact that it still lists the policy number when I try to log in, and my name (well, hubby's), it can't find the account or password; so I can't even log in to see what this "final bill" is (which I still haven't received. You'd think we'd have gotten it by now, if it was mailed out on the 6th). As for USAA ... the only info on the USAA web site I could find was this: >> USAA is a member-owned insurance and financial services company that primarily serves Active Duty, Selected Reserve and National Guard personnel in the U.S. Armed Forces, grown children of USAA members and former USAA members. << This is highly likely as to why they have such great rates ... they don't let "just anyone" in. Unless there's another USAA out there?
|
| | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 01:38 pm Senator, I think your profile got corrupted. I can see your quote only through admin, and I don't even have an E-mail for you, which should never happen. So send me an E-mail with YOUR E-mail, and I'll recreate your profile. I'll have to send you a new password. Sorry about that! Discus must have burped.
|
| | Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 01:58 pm Thank you Velvet. I am active duty military. I guess that is why I hear about them all of the time at work. No one on the ship seems to know if they use FICO though. Guess I will call them and find out. Thanks for the info! Mike
|
| | Tuesday, October 31, 2000 - 12:13 pm I have them. They run your Equifax report. And the immediate family of the person who qualifies for USAA also has access (me).
|
| | Wednesday, November 01, 2000 - 10:54 am Senator wrote: On to allstate although I have heard nothing but bad things about them. Switched to Allstate after moving to a new area of the city 2 years ago - they had the best rates. Had renters insurance through them, too. Then, bought a home about 8 months ago. Have homeowners and two vehicles insured through them. Two months after leasing a brand new truck (about four months after switching to Allstate), the truck slid down a hill and went into a pond. 85% under water for 2.5 hours (everything but the engine, dashboard and top of the truck was under water. $9,500 worth of repairs, mostly all body panels, paint, minor electrical in the doors and minor mechanical with the drive train). Allstate didn't bat an eye. Paid it all pronto. It was considered a comprehensive claim, not a collision (nobody was in the vehicle and it was parked when it slid into the pond). Next renewel came up, our rates when DOWN. About six months later, some idiot pulls into a gas station while I'm filling up the truck and scrapes his mirror down the side of this same truck. Called Allstate. Had a check ready for me in two days. Next renewel came up, our rates went DOWN again. I've have the BEST service and very good rates from Allstate.
|
| | Thursday, November 02, 2000 - 07:46 pm Update on the whole Geico thing ... after about 2 and a half weeks, we finally got their "last bill." It was for a whopping $7.10. Needless to say, for us this is a negligible amount, and we opted to send it (given we were expecting them to try and pull the "you owe us $150 blah blah blah" bit). It's done, it's over with. I'll never recommend Geico to anyone, and as soon as I can put everything together a little more cohesively than I did here, it'll likely be up on Epinions. Good Riddance.
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 06:23 am It would seem that after reading all of the posts in this thread and calling around and asking insurance companies if they used FICO as a guideline for auto insurance, it would seem that EVERY company uses credit scoring to some extent or another. There is simply no getting away from it. It is sad when it is easier for someone who has drunk driving convictions to get insurance when an honest, law abiding citizen can't because of poor credit. I myself am an example that poor credit doesn't make you a bad driver. From 1994-1999, my credit scores were way below 600. I didn't have one accident or even 1 speeding ticket in that time frame. FICO scoring and auto insurance don't mix one bit. I guess I'll post this also on epinons. What is next? No life insurance if your FICO is too low because you are at an increased risk to commit suicide? Just an opinion. Mike
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 10:29 am Regarding what's fair and what's unfair in insurance just forget about fair and try to work within the system. It's a common practice for men, especially young men, to get higher automobile insurance rates than women. Apparently men are considered statistically more likely to drive fast or wildly. That's straight up sexual discrimination. Too bad. That's life. Similarly if your casualty loss score (CLS) shows that you're statistically more likely to have an accident then that's what they'll go by. Don't forget also that your zipcode, distance you drive to work and a hundred other variables may impact it your rates as well. In many cases companies are forced to reply on government "scoring" systems. For example in California an accident is 3 points on your record while a ticket is 1 point. Who is to say that 3 tickets present the same insurance risk as 1 accident? What if your ticket was for driving in the carpool lane? Do you really think that a person driving in a carpool lane without the necessary people is more likely to have an accident than, let's say, someone who runs a stop sign or speeds? In addition after 5 years these items "drop off" your California DMV report. Who is to say that a ticket last year should have more weight than an accident that occurred 6 years ago? What studies have been done to determine that 5 years should be the cutoff on reporting of these items? I'll bet you none have been done. Also what if your accident was a minor fender bender where you clipped the rear of a car causing $1,000 in damages? What if another person's accident was a result of speeding at 80 in a 65 and resulted in totalling a $25,000 vehicle? Should your rates be the same as theirs?
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 12:51 pm Shylock, You bring up a very important point. With the rates for men vs. women, that is life. It stinks. Being a man, who today turned 25, I have paid those outrageous rates while my girl friend at that time(now wife) paid less than half of what I paid. I drove a '79 Camaro and she drove an '85 Mazda GLC. I know that the camaro would cause me to pay more, but not a couple of hundred more. While that point you brought up is very important, you forgot to mention one thing, the relevance of FICO in the insurance industry. I guess you are right in the sense that we will just have to deal with it. I have to vent at my frustration though. I have a high FICO score and it still bothers me to no end to see people pay outrageous rates due to credit scoring. These are good people who have made some financial, not driving, mistakes. What is the correlation between credit card charge off's and driving records? I know in an above post that I told the industry's perspective, but I completely disagree with it. Hopefully some day Congress will recognize the problem and enact the appropriate legislation to prohibit such an atrocity in America. I am familiar with CA driving requirements. Lived out in San Diego for quite a while with the Navy. Now live in Virginia Beach. What part of socal are you from? Thanks for the interesting point of view above. Mike
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 01:17 pm I live in the San Fernando Valley in a small suburb called Valley Village. They used to be called North Hollywood, but that lowered property values. Giving themselves a new name raised them. Go figure. Anyway I object to people calling the casualty loss score (CLS) FICO. I think that's misleading. We're not talking about the same score that is used to underwrite lending decisions being used to underwrite insurance decisions. That would be crazy. What we are talking about is that statisticians emperically derived a scoring system that is designed to predict a person's likelihood of an accident based on information contained in a person's credit profile. Using a person's credit in insurance underwriting criteria is not new. It was a standard practice at the time the original Fair Credit Reporting Act was created and was accepted then and is accepted now as a legally permissible purpose for accessing a person's credit profile. The only solution to using the CLS in underwriting automobile insurance decisions is to create a new information repository. Instead of being a credit bureau it would be a "liability bureau." It would keep records on all Americans of their accidents, the amounts paid out on them, their tickets, what they were for, and other information that bears on a person's statistical likelihood of costing their insurance company money. And then a company like Fair Isaac would be invited to peruse that information and would develop another casualty loss score. Then people would raise the same concerns about accuracy and correcting derogatory information that are currently raised about credit repository information. However, in all likelihood it would be more accurate than what we use today.
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 02:29 pm Very interesting, I was under the impression that your FICO score was directly used in the underwriting process to determine whether or not you were statistically(spelling) more likely to have an accident or not. I am to understand that this is not the case from what you have said above. The casualty loss score represents the possibility that you will have an accident based partially on information found in your credit report. I am to assume that what they use is secret. For example, do they assume that someone with a charge off on thier credit is more likely to have an accident than someone with say, a 30 day late? It sure is confusing. I guess it is good that they don't use the scores directly but only as one part of a whole. Didn't know about the history in credit scoring in insurance. Thanks for the insight. Never been to North Hollywood but am familliar with the name change though. Always just passed through the LA area on I-5 enroute to San Diego. I really like Palmdale. Usually go to the Los Angeles County Raceway when I get out that way to watch the drags. Anyway, thanks for the good info. Some food for thought. Mike
|
| | Monday, November 13, 2000 - 05:07 pm Shylock: The liability database you're wishing for exists. It's called CLUE and is hosted by Choicepoint. ISO, one of the big insurance industry organzations, has a competing service called "A PLUS" for homeowners insurance, with something supposedly in the works for auto. You are correct in that insurance scores developed by Fair Isaac (CLS/PLS at Choicepoint, Assist at Trans Union; I forget what the Experian and Equifax versions are called) are not the same as the Fico scores (Beacon/Empirica/Fico) the credit industry is used to thinking of. However, due to the danged black-box nature of all these scores, that difference is usually forgotten in insurance-land. Before insurance companies used credit data, they relied very heavily on CLUE. I doubt that companies will be willing to go back. Instead, I'd expect them to find ways to better use the two types of data together. Michael -- You ask: "What is the correlation between credit card charge off's and driving records?" A better question is: "What is the corelation between credit card chargeoffs and losses paid by insurance companies?" If the data in the document I linked to above is right, insurance companies pay out 40% more in losses when there's at least one status 7, 8, or 9 on a person's credit file, than when there's not.
|
| | Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 04:04 am Zed, Thanks for the statistical info. I was unaware of that data. That is really interesting. It perhaps confirms my above theory that credit responsibility goes hand in hand with driving responsibility. Also, it had been said above that casaulty loss scores have been developed based on the credit reports partially. It is starting to make sense now. Thanks for the clarification. Mike
|
| | Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 06:55 am If the data in the document I linked to above is right, insurance companies pay out 40% more in losses when there's at least one status 7, 8, or 9 on a person's credit file, than when there's not. I can't open a document in .pdf format, so maybe what I'm saying actually has been addressed, but this could be a case where correlation does not equal causation. So the insurance companies can prove that people with poor credit present higher accident risks. That alone doesn't mean much. There might be other factors which contribute both to bad credit and high accident risks. Alcohol abuse, for one. Heavy drinkers have trouble keeping jobs, therefore often have poor credit, and it's quite obvious that they aren't good drivers. Or consider age. Younger people are heavier users of credit than middle-aged people, and tend to have lower incomes, so they're probably more likely to have credit problems. And for whatever reason or reasons, it's long been established that younger people have more accidents. Even income might be a factor by itself. Lower-income people obviously tend to have poorer credit, and they're also the sort of people who have to drive older, less-safe vehicles. In other words, it may not be that bad credit causes high accident rates; instead, other factors may contribute to both situations. Unless the insurance companies can address this possibility, they shouldn't charge higher rates simply because someone has poor credit.
|
| | Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 03:03 pm There's a whole section in the document regarding causality. The gist of it is as follows: Insurance companies only need to worry about correlation, because causality is either too hard to completely prove, or it would be too difficult to use causal variables. For example, in much of the country, insurance companies use age as a rating element. Age is correlated to loss. However, your being young doesn't *cause* you to have an accident. The lack of driving experience, and the lack of maturity that many teenagers have are closer to actual causes. But age is a good proxy, and is much easier to determine. Or consider ZIP code (or something analagous), which is also used in most of the country. Where you park your car at night doesn't exactly cause you to have an accident. However it gives some clues as to the traffic density you encounter when you drive, road conditions, idiocy of other drivers on the road, .... All of those factors are harder to measure (unless you are in Progressive's new program in Texas, which monitors where/when/how you drive by a GPS receiver installed in your car), so ZIP code is used instead. The paper argues that credit score is a proxy for maintenance, carelessness, claims awareness (do you take advantage of the system), fraud potential, or stress. If that's true (and it'd be hard to show one way or another), maintenance/carelessness/claims awareness/fraud potential/stress are all hard to measure directly. Therefore credit score is an acceptable alternative. If you think that's a stretch...well, that's one of the reasons why a lot of people don't like credit scores in insurance. For your other points P. -- The paper talks about parts of this (are you sure you can't download & use Acrobat Reader?). Fair Isaac swears to high heaven that income is not looked at by any of the credit scores they sell in the U.S. For age -- the credit model described in the paper has some differences by age. That's not necessarily a problem -- in most places in the country insurance companies can charge younger drivers higher rates. What bothers me (and yes, I do work in insurance) is that when some companies started using credit scores, they didn't do their homework, and back off the rate hike they had already been taking against young drivers. Not out of maliciousness, mind you...just cluelessness.
|
| | Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 05:08 pm what we need is a class action suit brought by a class of insureds with bad FICO scores and perfect driving records, having been financially harmed by this (oxymoron) risk evaluation scheme. Maybe we just need a recount of those FICO scores? Ha.Ha.
|
| | Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 10:24 am hahaha yeah. Just because somebody chooses to pay cash/debit instead of paying interest doesn't make them a bad driver. The bottom line is that corporate uses statistics and credit scores to sock it to you. But aside from those immediate extra profits, there's the much more important long term AGENDA. The masses are supposed to be in debt. That keeps them working instead of thinking. The more I learn about how it all works, the less likely I am to participate. *I* can play the system as well as just about anyone. I'm just sorry for all the people that can't. I think it'll be a long time before I pay another penny of income tax again. Love that desert ...
|
| | Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 01:12 pm I still say that insurance companies are generalizing my credit rating to fit their stupid model. I live in an upscale neighborhood in L.A. I know a lot of cars that have either been broken into or stolen. Why? Well if I am a thief, why not go to an upscale area where people park their Toyota Camrys and whatever else is on the top 10 most knicked list. Also, I live in L.A., therefore I EXPECT to pay a higher premium because I have a moving violation on record and drive a lot for my job. This thing about my credit is stupid. So what the insurance company is saying is I am too high a risk because I had a bad 2 year run? Because I was laid off from a decent paying job, and to make ends meet, took a lesser paying one makes me a risk? I have been responsible in paying my debts the MAJORITY of my adult life. I know, why don't they see if somebody has a prison record? I would be willing to bet if somebody has a record, 95% of the time it is related to drugs or alcohol. Maybe spousal abuse or assault? Wouldn't somebody be more apt to be a RISK if this was the case? So fine, the Geicos and whatever want to play this game then they are sure limiting themselves as a business. I will NEVER shop for auto insurance with companies such as these. My credit will return to respectable levels and I WILL STILL not do business with schmucks like this. Add Geico to my boycott list of: BofA Wells Fargo Union Bank Tuna Companies (I don't care if dolphins are no longer part of it, they wouldn't cop to it until some newscamera caught them) Any organization that cowtows to the religious right (on a REGULAR basis) Oh well, this is truly pissing me off (if y'all can't tell from my rant) SORRY!
|
| | Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 01:16 pm Also, anybody notice how Bush and the GOP are SO for tort reform (regarding lawsuits of companies for product liability) yet they waste our time and tax dollars (yes, Gore too) over this ballot counting fiasco? I called the GOP office for California and brought this up, guess what they told me? Basically to •••• off... Oh well...sigh.
|
| | Thursday, November 16, 2000 - 08:13 pm Is this really true????? "(unless you are in Progressive's new program in Texas, which monitors where/when/how you drive by a GPS receiver installed in your car), so ZIP code is used instead." UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!
|
| | Friday, November 17, 2000 - 06:21 pm Amy: A PR blurb can be found on Progressive's website at http://www1.progressive.com/media_relations/autograph.htm
|
| | Sunday, November 19, 2000 - 02:25 pm I read the article, very interesting. I guess since it is completely voluntary it is not quite so bad. I just wonder how the rate the "when" part. What if I do shift work and get off at 2 am. Are they going to assume that since I am driving at 2 am I am leaving a bar and charge me more?
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |