After seeing an insured go to the national carrier they are with and lower themselves from our minimum to the state minimum.
Completely understand this younger person who needs to drive to work, pay other bills, etc. On the other hand, 8 of our 10 options would not offer a rate so he is left with 2 of our choices and maybe 2-5 others elsewhere. Now, we have a woefully underinsured driver on the road because this is what he can afford. So, his carrier is doing what they can to take on some of the riskier populations. But riskier is relative to the criteria they are basing rates on. Charging for driving infractions versus for paid claims. But, those other 8 companies of ours, not to mention a few dozen more will then shoulder the cost of the property damage from any claims he is involved in, not to mention the potential for large medical bills. As I learned this fall, it is very likely, in the event of a claim that exceeds the property damage, the carrier that pays it can then sue, garnish wages, etc. None of these are positive. None of these are healthy for the finances of the overall population. None of these are good activities for expense ratios. But, if a contract is not enforced, if consequences for bad choices are ignored, where are we left? We’re left where we are now. With companies who may or may not know who they want to insure. Then, they apply data to that uncertainty and it seems to be when in doubt, apply a higher rate. But it gets better, see when they cannot afford that higher rate and then cancel that policy, the new company can choose to negatively impact the rate for this person. This now locks them into a typically higher rate for another six or so months, maybe longer. Not good for anyone. Now, in theory, they could have provided him with coverage and collected premium, maybe secured with a telematics device? What if we took a longer play and said, you know, this person fits all our criteria and seems to have had a rough stretch 2 years ago. But, no claims were paid out and there were no accidents reported. Looks like he/she is in college and engaged now(we know because we are using data confidently and to the benefit of the customer, not the carrier) maybe this is a person we should work with?
No solutions, just concepts that can be used better.
2003 Volkswagen Jetta GL: So according to KBB.com the Good Trade-in Value is $1700 and Fair is $1125 so maybe I am around $1500. Now private party says $3225 and Fair is $2525, let’s keep being reasonable and say $2875 as the private party we won’t use retail because this car is not in excellent condition.
How about Edmunds? A little different process here comes up with $2734 as a trade in $3752 as a private party, same thing here retail seems a bit high.
So KBB average with my adjustments is $2187.50 and Edmunds is $3243 that is about a $1000 difference.
I was hoping to find some for sale, however, was unsuccessful so where does that leave me? With a $1000 collision deductible I may see somewhere between $1100 and $2200 dollars in the event of a total loss and the coverage costs about $100 for the year. It still looks like I am ahead and I would not mind having that money to buy another car. That being said, IN MY OPINION, it is almost time to drop the coverage.
Why should you do this, so in the event of a claim you are not surprised at the first offer that an insurance company makes.
This car was sold in July off 2013 for $550. There was a very large market, larger than I thought there would be. Definitely could have received more for it. But at that point, my conscience and moral compass stepped in and we all felt very satisfied at this price. It does go to show, as in this post that there is absolutely a market for cars that you cannot find on the internet.