Call your legislator to reduce your Auto Premium

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 1:58 pm

This is not a sales ploy, this will effect all good drivers no matter who they are insured with. Get on this:

http://clinehallagency.blogspot.com/201 ... er-to.html

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 5:03 pm

I know nothing about this other than reading the info from Cline's links. But I am left with questions as I am curious...

1. They say 20% of NC drivers (1.4 million) are in the the high risk pool and that our high risk pool is more than the rest of the other states combined. It's not clear as to why that is the case? Who decided as to who is in this pool now?

2. It says that over five years this 1.4 million will be moved over to regular policies. Why is that not happening already? What keeps people in the high risk pool? Will the high risk pool disappear?

3. I am assuming it is a cost thing. That at some point the high risk pool offering is cheaper than a regular policy (apparently cheaper than national average) and that everyone is subsidizing the pool to a larger amount than the national average. So in short the subsidy is too large so the pool size remains high? So the idea is to shrink or remove the subsidy and make the pool plan cost more? If I am on the right track, can't the insurance commissioner just increase the rate on the pool plan, drive away people and this should reduce the subsidy?

Richard

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 7:01 pm

Cline,

Do I understand correctly that the purpose of putting good drivers in the pool is to lower the rates/cost for the actual high risk drivers?

If so, and the law passes to eliminate this subsidy won't the rates for the real high risk drivers go up? Then won't more high risk drivers end up with no insurance with the result that we pay more for uninsured motorist coverage, etc.

My concern is that this could be a "pay me now or pay me later" situation if significant numbers of high risk drivers end up without insurance.

So, what do you think?

Dick

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 8:41 pm

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/20 ... S477v0.pdf

DickRasmussen · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 9:17 pm

Cline,

Isn't there a bill that would remove the Insurance Commissioner's authority to limit insurance premiums?

If so, won't we see the substantial rate increases that the Department of Insurance has held down for a long time?

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Tue May 17, 2011 11:17 pm

MarcusMcRae wrote:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S477v0.pdf

Quote:

An insurer may deviate from the rates promulgated by the Bureau if the insurer has filed the proposed deviation with the Bureau and the Commissioner and if the proposed deviation is based on sound actuarial principles.

I think I actually understand that, but its late and I don't care to translate into regular English, so I stopped reading.

I tend to agree with Dick's comments. This might be a great thing and I just can't see it. Someone (insurance industry?) needs to explain this better before I would support it.

Richard

clinehall · **Posted:** Wed May 18, 2011 11:17 am

Ok, Insuranc 101 the abridged version.

Probably everyone on this board gets there LIABILITY (this is all about liability, collision and comp are different) insurance in the "voluntary market" Meaning they state says ok ABC insurance you can charge MR. Castro 100 for this policy, you are allowed to discount it if you like and you can charge more if he has certain tickets and we will tell how much those tickets will cause the rate to go up. If ABC insurance doesn't think they can make money at 100 then they put it through the Reinsurance Facility. The policy still says ABC insurance but (if there a points on the policy) the base rate is 160 plus charges for ticket, if no tickets it is 100. In both cases there would be that surcharge to help run the Reinsurance Facility. The Reinsurance Facility will be ultimately responsible to pay for any claims arising from this policy even though ABC insurance will handle it. They always lose money so there always a surcharge.

Now if ABC would like to insure Mr. Castro at 120 (because they think this will make it a good bet at 120) they can't do it.

In short this bill lets the free market system have a better crack at insuring folks.

As for the question of more Uninsured drivers on the road because of it, IMHO people choose to be uninsured no matter what the price. The same guy that won't pay 150 a month won't pay 100 a month, I have seen it time and time again.

As a Disclaimer: I have not read the entire bill but this is what I understand it to be.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

clinehall wrote:

As for the question of more Uninsured drivers on the road because of it, IMHO people choose to be uninsured no matter what the price. The same guy that won't pay 150 a month won't pay 100 a month, I have seen it time and time again.

Given that you are MANDATED to have liabiliity insurance by law, I'd imagine that this is a fairly inelastic market. Normal supply/demand doesn't necessarily apply for a product that you are legally required to have.

I kind of agree with Cline's assessment.

RobLupella · **Posted:** Thu May 19, 2011 1:22 pm

BriceJohnson wrote:

clinehall wrote:

As for the question of more Uninsured drivers on the road because of it, IMHO people choose to be uninsured no matter what the price. The same guy that won't pay 150 a month won't pay 100 a month, I have seen it time and time again.

Given that you are MANDATED to have liabiliity insurance by law, I'd imagine that this is a fairly inelastic market. Normal supply/demand doesn't necessarily apply for a product that you are legally required to have.

I kind of agree with Cline's assessment.

I agree too. It isn't the cost it is the responsibility factor (or lack of such)

THSCC Forums

Call your legislator to reduce your Auto Premium

Who is online