U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2018, 09:35 AM
Status: "Adios to dummyland" (set 7 hours ago)
 
Location: Land of the Caddo and Tonkawa
3,902 posts, read 1,471,959 times
Reputation: 5454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenScoutII View Post
I don't get it. I'm over 40, I haven't filed an auto insurance claim since 1992, and I haven't received a ticket or citation for anything since 1996. My credit is good as well. Just seems high to me.
You can't look at it from a personal perspective or justification. It's mostly based on how the companies see matters and rates as whole: how the many affect them, and they divvy out the punishment on the many in return. We'd like to look at it logically - that they'd address each of us one-on-one - but those days are probably over.

Last edited by Thoreau424; 07-23-2018 at 09:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2018, 11:07 AM
 
161 posts, read 73,264 times
Reputation: 627
One thing everybody could do is to cut their coverage. When you call an insurance agent, they always want to sell you the 250/500 liability level of coverage. Higher coverage means higher premiums, more money for the insurer.

If you are a good driver, and have a good record, then cut that to 100/300. That will significantly lower your premiums. Cutting your premiums to that level is not like driving without seat belts. I would not cut it any lower, if you are wondering.

Yes, you have to assume more risk. An agent can always concoct a MVA (= motor vehicle accident) scenario where you are involved in a crash with a Ferrari, and the driver and seven total passengers die, and schrapnel from the wreck kills three innocent bystanders, etc. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Of course, even excellent drivers can get into wrecks, regardless of how good you are as a defensive driver. Either pay the piper, or reduce pay/coverage and assume more risk, but don't assume an unreasonable, wreckless amount of risk.

Also, the more money your car costs, the more it cost to insure it. I know -- the counter argument is that larger vehicles are "more protective" (e.g., SUVs). I wouldn't drive those tiny one-person cars, but a Civic or Corolla size sedan is sufficient in my estimation (of course, depending on size of family). Remember that for decades, American families did fine without SUVs.

Last edited by townshend; 07-23-2018 at 11:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2018, 12:06 PM
 
331 posts, read 163,491 times
Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
One thing everybody could do is to cut their coverage. When you call an insurance agent, they always want to sell you the 250/500 liability level of coverage. Higher coverage means higher premiums, more money for the insurer.

If you are a good driver, and have a good record, then cut that to 100/300. That will significantly lower your premiums. Cutting your premiums to that level is not like driving without seat belts. I would not cut it any lower, if you are wondering.

Yes, you have to assume more risk. An agent can always concoct a MVA (= motor vehicle accident) scenario where you are involved in a crash with a Ferrari, and the driver and seven total passengers die, and schrapnel from the wreck kills three innocent bystanders, etc. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Of course, even excellent drivers can get into wrecks, regardless of how good you are as a defensive driver. Either pay the piper, or reduce pay/coverage and assume more risk, but don't assume an unreasonable, wreckless amount of risk.

Also, the more money your car costs, the more it cost to insure it. I know -- the counter argument is that larger vehicles are "more protective" (e.g., SUVs). I wouldn't drive those tiny one-person cars, but a Civic or Corolla size sedan is sufficient in my estimation (of course, depending on size of family). Remember that for decades, American families did fine without SUVs.
Not always a good idea to go down in your liability coverage- you always have to have at LEAST enough liability coverage to protect your assets (houses etc..). Guess what The Strong Arm will come after if your insurance does not cover the damages you may cause? The house!

As an ex-agent I know that higher liability limits are sometimes less expensive since a lot of insurance companies see you as a better risk than someone who just maintains state minimum coverages.

The better thing to do is to increase your deductibles to $500 or $1,000- another reason to LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS and have a cushion of savings in the bank to pay the deductible cost. Of course most Americans do not even have $1K in the bank so that is pretty meaningless advice for most folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2018, 01:07 PM
 
161 posts, read 73,264 times
Reputation: 627
Follow up:

Ok, I happen to be taking out my first car insurance policy after having moved to Colorado 6/1/18. Since my earlier posting, I studied this issue and went and negotiated a slightly different rate. Here is the lowdown on possibly getting your rates down. Remember, insurance is unnecessarily complex and intentionally opaque.

Warning:
1) If you drive a big, expensive vehicle, then that costs more to insure, and you have only yourself to blame for that premium increase. I drive a 2014 Honda Civic, so while I refuse to drive a Yugo, I simply don't need a larger vehicle (such as an Accord, a fine automobile).
2) If you live in Denver, or a large metroplex with traffic congestion, and a higher incidence of MVA (= motor vehicle accidents), then again, you may pay higher premiums.

Here is the wiggle room:
1) I actually upped my insurance from 100/300 to 250/500 (thanks to LHS79 note). I searched on the Internet for statistical information on the average cost of lawsuits from MVAs, but you won't find it -- that would be too useful for savvy consumers. At any rate, I am having a house built and I do see the wisdom in higher coverage.

So where can you cut where it is not tooooooo painful? Here you do:
1) comprehensive -- I got rid of it. What is comprehensive? It is for all "non-collision" damage to your vehicle. For example, from a hailstorm, or a tree limb falling and crushing your roof. Or vandalism. Or hitting a deer. Or a rock hits your windshield. I hardly ever have filed a comprehensive claim in over 50 years. I am most concerned about MVAs. This also means "no glass coverage." Fine -- I have had cracked windshields every so often -- some of them I fixed myself (kit you purchase at auto parts store), some of them I didn't. It's just a risk and it is not worth taking comprehensive to eliminate entirely.
2) Raise your deductible -- yes, I raised mine from 500 to 1000 (I have had 1,000 deductible in the past, but when an insurance agent gives you a quote, then always, always start at 500.) Of course, you have to be handle the deductible should you have a wreck.

My rate came out to about 71.00 per month, or 425.00 every six months.

There are two other categories that should be considered for cutting:
3) medical payments: this refers to medical payments should you or your passenger(s) be injured. I have Medicare B and a supplement, and before that, I had an ACA plan. (I know that the Republicans have struck down the requirement to carry health insurance, but health insurance is more important than car insurance). The likelihood of me having uninsured passengers in my car is low. I'll probably dump this on renewal -- it costs 26.47 per six months. If you give rides to lots of people without private health insurance, it may be appropriate to continue it.
4) emergency road service -- this is only 3.73 per six months. Yes, I have had my car towed very rarely -- when alternator went out, etc. But I may dump it if I don't use it in the next six months. I haven't had it in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2018, 05:55 PM
 
1,368 posts, read 2,453,780 times
Reputation: 1909
Given the hailstorms on the front range, dropping comprehensive is a terrible idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2018, 06:28 PM
 
331 posts, read 163,491 times
Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brill View Post
Given the hailstorms on the front range, dropping comprehensive is a terrible idea.
True- but comp coverage should be dropped if the premiums are more than the value of the car.

And remember that hitting an animal is a comp claim and not a collision claim. I remember the TV ads showing a guy swerving into a guardrail instead of smacking the cute squirrel in the road. That is an AAF (at-fault accident) and it will affect your rates in most cases. Comp claims are not as bad unless you file a lot of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2018, 12:59 PM
 
424 posts, read 176,153 times
Reputation: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
One thing everybody could do is to cut their coverage. When you call an insurance agent, they always want to sell you the 250/500 liability level of coverage. Higher coverage means higher premiums, more money for the insurer.

If you are a good driver, and have a good record, then cut that to 100/300. That will significantly lower your premiums. Cutting your premiums to that level is not like driving without seat belts. I would not cut it any lower, if you are wondering.

Yes, you have to assume more risk. An agent can always concoct a MVA (= motor vehicle accident) scenario where you are involved in a crash with a Ferrari, and the driver and seven total passengers die, and schrapnel from the wreck kills three innocent bystanders, etc. Hopefully, you get the picture.

Of course, even excellent drivers can get into wrecks, regardless of how good you are as a defensive driver. Either pay the piper, or reduce pay/coverage and assume more risk, but don't assume an unreasonable, wreckless amount of risk.

Also, the more money your car costs, the more it cost to insure it. I know -- the counter argument is that larger vehicles are "more protective" (e.g., SUVs). I wouldn't drive those tiny one-person cars, but a Civic or Corolla size sedan is sufficient in my estimation (of course, depending on size of family). Remember that for decades, American families did fine without SUVs.
This only makes sense if you have little or no assets. If you have anything you want to hold onto, you should have a personal umbrella policy and those require you take the maximum liability on your auto. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish. You might save a few bucks only to loose everything you worked for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2018, 02:22 PM
 
331 posts, read 163,491 times
Reputation: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by COcheesehead View Post
This only makes sense if you have little or no assets. If you have anything you want to hold onto, you should have a personal umbrella policy and those require you take the maximum liability on your auto. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish. You might save a few bucks only to loose everything you worked for.
Exactly -

If you carry high limits commesurate with your assets in a liabilty case both sides will settle quickly.

If you have assets and minimal coverage you are setting yourself up for disaster if you get sued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2018, 06:18 PM
 
161 posts, read 73,264 times
Reputation: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by COcheesehead View Post
This only makes sense if you have little or no assets. If you have anything you want to hold onto, you should have a personal umbrella policy and those require you take the maximum liability on your auto. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish. You might save a few bucks only to loose everything you worked for.
Your post doesn't make sense -- because I updated my original post twol posts later.

But you raise an important point -- at what point do you conclude that having more insurance doesn't provide protection from reasonable asset loss? To use your language, at what point is purchasing more insurance pound foolish? When does one's assets necessitate an umbrella policy, and how much coverage should that policy provide?

The frustrating aspect of these discussions is that -- to the best of my knowledge -- the insurance companies have not published any statistical information, so that consumers can have empirical data to inform their decision on insurance. The existent vagaries make it difficult if not impossible to determine reasonable amounts of coverage, and allows fear mongering to drive the conversation (an appropriate pun).

Last edited by townshend; 07-27-2018 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2018, 04:56 PM
 
424 posts, read 176,153 times
Reputation: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by townshend View Post
Your post doesn't make sense -- because I updated my original post twol posts later.

But you raise an important point -- at what point do you conclude that having more insurance doesn't provide protection from reasonable asset loss? To use your language, at what point is purchasing more insurance pound foolish? When does one's assets necessitate an umbrella policy, and how much coverage should that policy provide?

The frustrating aspect of these discussions is that -- to the best of my knowledge -- the insurance companies have not published any statistical information, so that consumers can have empirical data to inform their decision on insurance. The existent vagaries make it difficult if not impossible to determine reasonable amounts of coverage, and allows fear mongering to drive the conversation (an appropriate pun).
To address your point about my post not making sense, I read from the top down, not the bottom up. As far as how much insurance do you need, I would at least cover my net worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top