[Update: Progressive responded and clarified that the fine print does NOT mean they will use military service to give you a higher rate.] We got this email tonight from Ceaser, who wants to know why his military service would negatively affect his car insurance:
While searching for new car insurance on progressive and sadly other insurance carriers, figuring what the rate check would be I answered a few questions. Some questions asked were if I was currently in the military and in college, I am both. As an Iraq war Army vet I am currently going to school with the GI bill, and tuition assistance from the Air national guard, so I put that I am both a student and national guard.
Well before I used to call and verify information and just to see if anything was available if there was any sort of military discount available. As always I get told that the prices were low enough that not to require a discount, or that military discounts weren’t available from the company, as in Progressive. Geico does give a military discount but their rates are so jacked up that there really isn’t a discount, actually $300+ w/ military discount over my progressive, state farm, and sad to say allstate. Anyhow I come to the final page and in the fine print I see this:
Your rate may vary, or you may not be offered a quote, due to eligibility requirements (you may not qualify for that program), credit history, recent military service, or driving record (if your actual record is different than what you told us). If you have been assigned to your recent automobile insurance policy by the state, or if any of the drivers you listed requires proof of financial responsibility, your rate may be higher than those provided by this comparison service. [emphasis ours -Editor] Now my question is this. With news that 1 in 5 soldiers coming back from Iraq have mental, health, PTSD issues, not to mention the suicide rate climbing among periods of deployments. Long term deployments having stress issues and coping when coming back. Could these news be used to proclaim that Military might be a higher risk therefore lets bend you over and take your money? I hope not but then again most of these companies don’t care other than the bottom line. Any insight or help would greatly be appreciated.
Any Progressive lurkers out there who can chime in on the “recent military service” fine print and just how it’s used to determine your eligibility and rate?
More From Consumerist
-
After Woman Dies In Car Crash, Brother Says Her Insurance Company Defended Other Driver In Court
-
Progressive Denies Defending Driver Who Killed Policyholder In Crash
-
I Hate Progressive Insurance For Waking Me Up Over And Over
-
Consumer Group: The Rich May Pay Less For Car Insurance Even If They’re Not Safe Drivers
-
Why Would The Victim's Insurance Company Defend The Other Driver In A Fatal Car Accident?
First off, let me echo those posters above who have recommended USAA for veterans.
Secondly, I wish people would really think about things before saying stuff like “all they care about is their bottom line”
All corporations care about their bottom line. why should insurers be exempt? Why should they abandon all aspects of sound business practice because you may feel something is repugnant.
Auto insurance companies have huge databases of claims history and premium history. They run complex data mining exercises to compute which factors have the most correlation with risk. Why wouldn’t a company in the business of risk try to minimize such risk?
Shame on Progressive. I’m glad I didn’t switch to them.
Ironically, I’ve gotten quotes from both Progressive and State Farm, to see if they could beat my Geico bill.
Both were considerably higher than Geico.
It’s been said before, but I have to say it again…..if you have access to USAA, use USAA!
@NameGoesHere: Shame on Progressive? DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE? The likely reason military service may determine rates is because if you went a couple years without insurance, because you were serving overseas, they will not hold that against you, like they would with civilians, thus, not giving you a higher rate due to the period where you were uninsured. Yes, shame on Progressive for giving them a break when it comes to car insurance.
This is on the comparison rate page. Shame on State Farm, instead.
I would think its to confirm one is actually in the Military, because, sadly, a few bad people are taking advantage of Military discounts without serving in the Military.
Sigh. Reading wins. Knee-jerk reaction loses. The quoted language says that your “rate may vary” based on a bunch of factors. Things may of course vary UP or DOWN. There is nothing here that weighs against the common sense presumption that they would vary DOWN (cheaper) for veterans….
USAA is NOT the cheapest in every situation.
My family, 0 accidents, 0 claims, 0 moving violations after 25 years with USAA. IOW, their dream customers. We send in check for every premium, they deposit it, and then they never hear from us again.
We decided to shop around one day and are saving between $350-$400 on every 6 month premium with MORE insurance than what USAA ever gave us. Unless you think $400 more semi-annually is worth their friendly customer service, all you USAA kool-aid sippers would drop them like the plague like we did.
If USAA had competitive auto insurance rates, we’d go back in a heartbeat.
So, I recommend to all my USAA friends that they shop around b/c while USAA used to be the cheapest around, that’s not always the case anymore. If anything, checking out the competition makes you feel better that you’re saving bunches of money with USAA, right?
@krunk4ever: @AT203:
Yes, some commenters are going a little overboard.
The issue to me is why it could potentially be a negative factor at all. There are many more ways of writing that so that its more clear and I don’t think progressive is short on lawyers or trying to save space. Yes, it is likely lower. Or, it could be higher as well as I’m sure the number crunchers have determined (e.g. PTSD, more willingnes for vets to take chances [compared to what they've been through], etc. This is related to the overall consumer issue of what is appropriate (or legal) to factor when determining insurance rates. Credit history seems to be a lost battle. But where does it end?
what if the rates are lower for Military people?
the rates should be lower. working in the military is one of the few jobs where you can make technically below minimum wage for the first 10 years you’re there. you’re on call 24/365 and yet $900/mo is your starting wage. the military should cover car insurance on the first vehicle for enlisted and their first dependent’s vehicle if it’s a spouse.
everywhere should offer a military discount, they have the most ridiculous wages in the nation for what they do.
@BlackFlag55: You don’t know anything about history, besides what you see on Fox, aren’t you?
Cuba is bad, but Arabs Emirats are much, much worse. But there are USA’s ”friends”.
And if you had a choice to live in a country – between capitalist Nigeria and ”communist” Cuba, you’d choose Cuba, because their quality of life is much better (and no local conflicts).
And for your info, USA has become exactly what communists hoped Soviet Union would become.
So you have nothing to be proud about. Your government is corrupt and pissed off every other country in the world (especially their allies).
Which is really, really sad, considering China is becoming the new world power (Which was predicted in the 18th century, by the way.)
And I’m sure you NEVER served in the military anyway. So shut up, and enroll. Then you’ll have the right to profit from serviceman’s service to USA.
(As for the insurance, it’s simple lawyer’s lingo to protect from fraudsters, who claim to be part of army. REAL servicemen will get a better quote, and an exemption from the fact, that they didn’t have any insurance for the last year or two).
The simple fact that they sandwiched recent military service between two things they cite as potential negatives that will jack your insurance is bad enough.
Progressive overcharges and has lousy customer service. Go with USAA or Kemper, way cheaper, less stupid.
Frankly, if I was in the business of giving people money when they crash their cars, and found out that veterans were more likely to be suicidal drunks — which they are — you’re darn tootin’ I’d charge them more.
The fact that a person has “served his country” (strings and slo-mo flag-fluttering here) is irrelevant.
@mycroft2000: How generous of you to let soldiers carry the extra, hidden economic cost and risk of serving in your military. Thanks for your unwavering, slo-mo support.
Hey mycroft2000 – I served 21 years in the USAF, I am neither suicidal nor a drunk and I met very few during my tenure.
But as of about 5 minutes ago, I have met my first A$$HOLE — YOU!
Oh, they just don’t want to have to insure your Panzer, that’s all…
Epic fail, Consumerist.
@mycroft2000: We don’t have any proof that vets are any more crazy than non-vets. Social scientists have been studying this for years, and they continue to study Iraq vets. So far any evidence is anecdotal and rare. People get worked up when there’s a single weird vet story on the AP wires, but for every one, there are hundreds of non-vet crazy stories.
From the way that webpage cited in this article reads, it sure sounds like all those conditions they list are reasons for increasing rates and denying coverage, not the awarding of discounts and playful puppies. I’m going to assume that they are listing reasons to pick your pocket more deeply.
I’m so neutral on the topic that I believe that insurance should truly spread all risk evenly throughout the insured population, no matter the age, sex or other characteristics. Any other program inevitably leads to a slippery slope of people demanding discounts and special considerations, as many people do here; and, insurance companies’ creating new classes of people to increase premiums and/or decrease coverage. How about pay-at-the-pump car insurance, or mileage-based insurance?
Just in response to the headline… I suspect Progressive is using “Recent Military Service” to determine rates and eligibility because their hypersmart actuaries showed that recent military service affects driving performance? Of course, I think they are silly for implementing and then publicly and freely declaring this… this is obviously PR suicide for them.
@t325: This is why titles of posts are important. A lot of people just read the title.. some of the article and then comment.
Right or not, this is most likely a result of a drastically higher rate of vehicular accidents among returning military than typical civilian drivers. Its an issue that the military has recently begun to address and is detailed in the following (unfortunately incomplete) article:
[www.jstor.org]
and in the article “muscle memory” in the 7.30.07 issue of The New Yorker (which is also avail only as an abstract)
The paragraph quoted from Progressive might be a reference to this:
[www.armytimes.com]
Recent military service being used to waive the requirement that customers have continuous insurance coverage (which means recent veterans would be receiving lower rates than normal in many situations).
Honestly, I think people are freaking out over a badly-phrased sentence, nothing more.
For all that is good and holy, please read this post up above before typing in a kneejerk reaction about how Progressive hates America.
@Victo: what we really need is an actual left wing party and not one right party and one slightly left of the right party.
@dreamcatcher2: Just in response to the headline…
Maybe save your comments until you actually read the article (and given the skimpy reporting by Consumerist, and excellent work by the commenters, the comment thread).
Why the hell isn’t he using USAA?
Just got off the phone with a Progressive rep who said that the reason it says that is because in some states, military personnel are offered discounts.
I guess that makes sense, but it’s vaguely worded and sounds like they would declare you ineligible for coverage if you were in the military.
@mycroft2000: I’ve met a lot of crazy people, until now, no vets. And I worked in different fields related to customer service.
It sounds like it is a consideration.
Basically, this is the idea: If you have maintained auto insurance for at least a year, consecutively you are a better risk. If you were on active duty in the military you probably did not maintain auto insurance (what with not driving). Progressive, however, will consider your time with the military as insured time. This makes your rate BETTER. The disclaimer states it is a consideration because it has to state everything under consideration.
USAA! I’ve been a member for almost 28 years. Never had a problem.
I agree- USAA FTW. They have absolutely outstanding customer service in all regards.
@krunk4ever: I’m glad at least there’s one voice of reason here.
With news that 1 in 5 soldiers coming back from Iraq have mental, health, PTSD issues, not to mention the suicide rate climbing among periods of deployments. Long term deployments having stress issues and coping when coming back
Um. Yes? They’ve statistically showed that people who want to shoot up other people and come home broken often crash their cars and cost the insurance company more, so they get charged more. You’re not surprised or asking a question, you’re just trying to get your whining aired in public.
@mgy: I don’t see why it should — Progressive (I assume) doesn’t qualify as “federally assisted”; as for affirmative action, that would only apply in the employment arena.
@NeroDiavolo:
No, those things really don’t have an impact on your ability to get a credit card. They might not help, but they aren’t part of a credit report, which is the main factor for getting a credit card. The only factor not registering may have is limiting your access to federally-guaranteed student loans and going to work for the government.
When businesses ask about military service, this is usually so they can adjust their sales pitch. Some people, car salesmen for example, think GIs are uniformly stupid, and will pull out all the stops in an attempt to rip off the troops.
I was under the impression that most car insurance companies take military service into account, usually giving discounts to members of the military or those who served honorably.
Once again, we have posters jumping to conclusions.
@RandomHookup: Actually, GIs are perceived as being an inferior credit risk compared to the general public. I used to run into this sort of thing all the time when I was in the service. As I would tell all my Joes, joining your friendly-neighborhood credit union is the cure for that.
@bonzombiekitty: If you get a referral from a military professional organization like the Non Commissioned Officer Association (NCOA – which I think even privates can join), you can generally avoid getting ripped off. Orgs like NCOA negotiate special rates with insurance companies and such in exchange for steering members in their direction.
@Hawk07: No company will ever be the cheapest in every situation. Especially in risk-adjusted businesses like insurance.
The benefit of USAA is the customer service and the breadth of available services delivered in an ethical and straightforward manner.
Whenever I deal with USAA, I believe that they truly have my best interests at heart. They don’t charge me any more than they need to – and refund the difference if it’s too much.
Their managed account services are bar none in the industry. If you have a managed account, you have access to a financial advisor for free for the life of the account.
They lead the banking industry in deposit services. Checking accounts like the one they offer didn’t exist before they created it. I left B of A for them and will never look back.
In essence, they treat me like the good customer that I am. I am a face, a name, a member. That’s how I’m treated and why I keep giving them business.
For insurance products, I hope I never need to call on USAA, but as I move through life, I rest assured that they will be there for me and my family when I need them. The same can’t be said for the cheapest available coverage that I can find on teh internets.
@BlackFlag55: Wait a minute…the fine print was ambiguous, and then the CSR (and the Army Times) explained that military service actually was a BENEFIT to the veteran and helped REDUCE rates, but because you disagree with the politics of the CEO, you’ve decided that this is anti-military?
I’m a vet myself (with USAA, and I agree…Ceasar (sigh) should check them out ASAP). I try to keep a balanced outlook and usually laugh at such statements like “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
After reading your post, maybe I need to reevaluate. You’re living in a bubble, my friend.
I am angered that progressive does not support our troops and refuse to do any research or wait for a response on whether their policy really does negatively affect those serving our glorious country above all countries before canceling my service with them / declaring that I will never use their services.
“In case you couldn’t tell, I was being sarcastic.”
My gosh people, get a grip! You don’t think that reviewing military records is proper? Well let me throw this at you. Progressive looks into a serviceman’s background. On his record is a dishonorable discharge. Now do you really think that such a person would NOT be a higher risk? If you don’t I have deeds to some bridges.
This is no different than looking at your last 5 years driving record. The OP does not say that being in military service was a detriment to his acquiring insurance only that only that it was one of the factors. Insurance companies rate stability of employment all the time in fixing rates. You have 5 jobs in 1 year, that’s a mark of instability and will go against you. Same with an improper discharge.
Man….
I really don’t know how some of the people posting anti-Progressive stuff avoid choking on cereal or drowning in their coffee each morning
It’s standard practice to possibly get a military discount……if you don’t disclose that you’re in the military (and are able to prove it), how in the world would you get a discount………
Progressive got all weird after 2005 about using credit worthiness for scoring (at least for TN for their motorcycle policies). They wanted me to have an open credit line since before age 25 and score better for people with more than 5 open loans. The reasoning for the 5 open loans is that people with this are less apt to file a claim- yes less since they are used to paying money where as someone with less than 5 open loans is more apt to file a claim. As for the loan since before age 25 I had to show them that I have had a specific credit card since age 19 – this two years in a row. Don’t know why this is but they said the older open line of credit scores more than having under 5 open loans…
@evilinkblot: Oh my…I needed a laugh today, thank you
It’s unbelievable how immediately worked up people can get when the troops are mentioned. It’s like some part of the brain hears “troops” and switches off, leaving the body to rave like a lunatic.
@Corydon: Shh. No fair bring facts up. Black Flag has an agenda and silly things like reality shouldn’t deter him.
“You’re a hypocrite for making money while being a socialist!”
“Um, I’m not a socialist. I’m a liberal.”
“So I guess capitalism is good when it serves your commie friends.”
“My what? Look, I never criticized capitalism in the first place.”
“Hypocritical Commie!”
“*sigh*”