4 ms·
I don't like this. It seems to set a precedent that in the opposite situation (I dunno, a haze that pushes up auto-accidents?) then they might take the opposite
by peteretep 7y ago
I don't like this. It seems to set a precedent that in the opposite situation (I dunno, a haze that pushes up auto-accidents?) then they might take the opposite tack. People pay insurance to (massively simplified) even out payments for unlikely events, and messing around with that -- even in a direction that short-term seems good for consumers -- seems questionable.
- metric10 7y agoBut they do this already. In Colorado many insurers raised rates when we had a large hail storm that caused widespread damage. Allstate roughly doubled my premium because of it (or so they said), even though I parked my car in a garage both at home and at work at the time. I found a better rate elsewhere, but I’m sure others just paid it. So the fact that they’re offering a reduction seems fair, I guess. Although I wonder if they’re really only seeing a 15% reduction in costs.
- javagram 7y agoThat concept already exists, but instead of charging customers, the insurance company calls on its own insurance company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
- ultimoo 7y agoWhat's stopping them from increasing premiums today? They quote every 3 - 6 months and can increase premiums across the board if auto-accidents trend upward. If you are referring to increasing premiums in the middle of a quote cycle, that's not possible due to how the terms of the quote are worded. The insurance industry is regulated.
- 1123581321 7y agoThere’s no mechanism for that other than increasing renewal rates for actuarial reasons, which for auto would be a longer term trend. As the other commenter pointed out, reinsurance covers expensive disasters.