Auto Insurance Discrimination (middle east, serial killers, suspect, racist)
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.
Sexual preference isn't a protected class at a federal level.
As far as auto insurance (and insurance in general) it's a highly regulated industry where rates are driven by actuaries and adjusted by underwriters given certain acceptable risk characteristics
In many cases age & gender won't get the same level of rate discounts due to the proven risk characterstics
it's not discriminatory if it's factual
however, those facts must be applied evenly and in a non-discriminating manner
which basically means you can't hit one applicant with an under 25 fee and then not appy it to a like candidate
insurance companies are audited constantly for these type of things
Sexual preference isn't a protected class at a federal level.
As far as auto insurance (and insurance in general) it's a highly regulated industry where rates are driven by actuaries and adjusted by underwriters given certain acceptable risk characteristics
In many cases age & gender won't get the same level of rate discounts due to the proven risk characterstics
it's not discriminatory if it's factual
however, those facts must be applied evenly and in a non-discriminating manner
which basically means you can't hit one applicant with an under 25 fee and then not appy it to a like candidate
insurance companies are audited constantly for these type of things
Just because I have way to much time on my hands, I looked up to see if black drivers had a higher rate of accidents when compared to white drivers. I did not find such a statistic, but I did find a statistic that stated that black drivers were more likely to not wear their car's seatbelt.
So, if I were an insurance company, could I charge black motorists a higher premium based on a statistic that black drivers are less likely to wear their seat belts? Or would this be discrimination based on race? And if it would be racial discrimination, then why aren't insurance companies guiilty of age discrimination?
As I understand it, a restaurant can deny a person service based on "no shoes", "dirty hands" and probably even "bad breath". But a restaurant can't deny service based strictly on ethnic backround, sexual preference, age, etc. I doubt an insurance company can deny a black person auto insurance based on race. I would guess an auto insurance company would have a very tough time charging higher premiums to a black person based on race, regardless of nationwide stats. But insurance companies charge higher rates to young people based on nothing but age. So my question remains, How can this be done without legal challenge?
But when you start picking at it like that, everyone has a beef. Why can't I sue the insurance company because they charge me slightly more based on the fact that my income is lower than average?
They are gamblers and if they didn't turn the odds in their favor, they would become insolvent. Again, we're not dealing with people, we're dealing with numbers.
You could also ask the (hypothetical) question as to why, as a 95 years old in the Bronx, who has smoked all his life, had cancer 5 times, drinks a bottle of vodka every day, and eats at McDonalds three times a day, my health insurance should be more than a 20 year old marathon runner in Fargo ND? I guess you could call it discrimination. But that's the nature of the insurance scheme.
I mean, think about it: my health insurance as a 47 year old is going to be more than yours as a younger person (I'm presuming). Why? Isn't that age discrimination as well?
I mean, think about it: my health insurance as a 47 year old is going to be more than yours as a younger person (I'm presuming). Why? Isn't that age discrimination as well?
Yes, why? And I'm baffled as to why it isn't challenged legally. My only guess is that insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on age, probably gender, but probably not ethnicity. How insurers can be allowed to discriminate legally (not to be confused with the rationale for the discrimination) I find perplexing.
As I understand it, a restaurant can deny a person service based on "no shoes", "dirty hands" and probably even "bad breath". But a restaurant can't deny service based strictly on ethnic backround, sexual preference, age, etc. I doubt an insurance company can deny a black person auto insurance based on race. I would guess an auto insurance company would have a very tough time charging higher premiums to a black person based on race, regardless of nationwide stats. But insurance companies charge higher rates to young people based on nothing but age. So my question remains, How can this be done without legal challenge?
Insurance co. dont deny you insurance based on age or gender they just charge higher rates.
It should be common sense to you that if I've had 30 years driving experience with never an accident or even a speeding ticket (or any kind of ticket), I'm less of a risk on the highway than an inexperienced 18 year old. Maybe in your world proven experience doesn't count for anything?
Your question is like asking why a major leaguer with 15 years experience is more likely to play baseball well than a 5 year old who has played a couple games of tee-ball.
Apparently you have no comprehension of the question I posed, that is fine, everyone is allowed a slip.
If the average for 50 year olds to have an accident is one per year
and the average for 18 year olds to have an accident is 4 per year
yet the 50 year old drives 1500 miles per year
and the 18 year old drives 15000 miles per year, who is the greater risk?
All other things equal, in 15000 miles, a 50 year old will have 10 accidents to the 18 year olds 1, but that is why insurance is sold by the year, and not mile.
Proven experience is crap. I'm 25. I have never caused an accident. However, when I was 16, I was sideswiped by a 28 year old WOMAN, at 17 I was rear ended by a man in his 70s. 4 years ago my wife was backed into by a 70plus man. I say the odds are in my favor of being a better driver, but hey, since nationwide statistics and local numbers decide my insurance, I guess im focked...
Proven experience is crap. ... I have never caused an accident.
You are contradicting yourself. If you are 25 and have never been responsible for a crash, that IS proven experience. I've been driving 30 years and... nothing at all, not even a parking ticket. That's what I mean. Perhaps 'good driving record' would have been a better choice of words. That being the case, we are both proven lower insurance risks. The only difference is that I've been proving it three times longer than you have. It's a good thing in both our cases.
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.
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.
