Why Is Progressive Using "Recent Military Service" To Determine Rates And Eligibility?
[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: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?
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.
This is a test using rich text formatting and html links. It's the generic "company" ad that should appear on all posts with the Company category if they don't have an ad attached to a specific company.
Post a comment
Comments:
Ceaser should look into USAA. period.
I wonder if
Section 402, Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974 - prohibits discrimination based on Vietnam-era veteran status or special disabled veteran status in federally assisted programs and requires affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified special disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era.
would set any sort of precedent for this situation?
@mgy: By the way, I understand that it specifically mentions federally assisted programs and employment practices, but it was the only snippet I could find about this sort of thing.
YES, look into USAA! My friend's a service member and swears by them.
Naturally, another corporation trying to screw our servicemen/women who are out protecting us and doing what they're ordered to do. Someone should tell the "Progressive" scumbags who came up with this idea to go spend a day on the field.
Thanks Ceasar for bringing this to our attention. I can typically forgive easily but singling out military as a reason to jack rates is pathetic. Another thanks for serving brother.
I have never served but I highly respect those who have and after this I will never go with progressive (or shall I say regressive?)
Btw thank you very much Caesar
Needs the headline: Progressive Insurance does not support the troops.
Off with their heads! We have no idea if this has any affect on rates at all. In fact, Progressive could be giving recent vets a break... but, but... who cares if we don't have all the facts? Down with Progressive! They don't support the troops!
JD Power rates USAA highest both in customer service and in rates.
BTW, I dropped Progressive recently for other reasons. If I could, I'd drop them again.
Did anyone even READ the article? Nowhere does Ceasar claim he got a higher quote by checking that he was in military service. He just made some guesses on why it could possibly be there.
What in that statement shows that it won't actually be a discount?!?!
If you really want to know if Progressive is charging higher or lower if you've been in military service, do 2 quotes yourself, one stating you're in military and one stating you're not and see what the difference is before making these flaming accusations.
Everyday, I find the Consumerist crowd's ability to reason and think logically drop lower and lower...
Well that's it. Not staying with Progressive once my half a year with them is over.
I agree with switching to USAA. I switched over to them from Progressive when I graduated boot camp. I was 18 years old with one ticket and one non-fault accident, their rate was $100/month cheaper than progressive.
@ShortBus: Yes. A thousand times this.
Many car insurance companies give breaks to military vets (or current servicemen/women), as well as to college students, particularly those with good grades.
But hey, evil corporation, internet, hur hur hur pitchforks and torches.
I am opposed to Progressive's politics, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Recall that cell phone companies are (supposed to) provide flexibility to deployed military, perhaps there are requirements that Progressive bends for the troops (e.g. moving every two years would be a bad sign for a civilian!). They may do this by law; they may even be the exception that proves the rule, a liberal entity that actually DOES support the troops rather than just insisting they do.
@ShortBus:, @krunk4ever: Amen. I read and re-read that trying to figure out how someone could conclude that recent military service was definitely a negative factor, but I can't figure it out. The very next factor listed is "driving record," and I hope we all know that your driving record can have either a negative or a positive effect on your insurance rates.
Might help to follow krunk's advice and do some research before hanging Progressive for treason.
The disclaimer doesn't even appear to apply to Progressive's quote, but to the comparison quote they offer.
I know insurance can also vary for military members because their cars often sit for long periods of time so you can change the type for coverage you. I don't think they are doing anything bad by asking for recent military status.
Actually I just called Progressive and asked them because I was curious. They said your military status could affect your rate because they might be able to count your time in service as time you were insured, thus lowering your rate. The more time anyone has spent uninsured, apparently, increases your rate.
Who needs to be Patriotic when there's money to be made?
@faust1200: How DARE you do research about an issue and get both sides of the story and actually get to the bottom of it before commenting on it! We're supposed to believe sensationalist articles, not fair, unbiased reporting. Shame on you!
/sarcasm
Thank you for your service, Ceasar.
Please consider USAA. I'm sure you'd qualify, they treat their customers well, and the rates are good.
Have you not seen the NY Times and Washington Post reports on 25% of returning soldiers having mental issues? Not that its their fault versus too long deployments in asymmetric warfare situations. If I was at Progressive or any insurance company, I would want their rates priced just like anyone else's -- on actuarial data. The discriminate against men too, especially single men, and even more so on single men that are young with fast cars. Did the customers at Progressive or any insurace company for that matter volunteer to pay higher rates to cover vets? Of course not. If there is an issue here, the the DoD needs to step in and assure that this is handled as a benefit to the Vets. This is not illegal discrimination. And most importantly, why are they being discharged in such a state to cause this? Why are they even being allowed to get into such a state? When will this madness stop? Is it really necessary to burn out these guys for Iraq? And all of you that want to support the troops? Well let me point you to the nearest recruiting office or vote and make your voice heard to get out of Iraq. Either option will help.
Notwithstanding the above CSR explanation ...
Peter Lewis, Progressive Chairman named Progressive Insurance 'progressive' because his politics are 'progressivism'. He is a large contributor to the DNC, he is an associate of George Soros, Herb and Marion Sandler and has directed large sums towards 'investment in the intellectual future of the Left'.
Mr. Lewis is using capitalism to fund his utopian socialist ideas for our society, a not altogether unique hypocrisy. Mr. Lewis is also on record as opposed not only to eradicating international stateless terror, but also on record that this nation must move so far to the Left that we should resemble other socialist utopias such as Cuba, East Germany and the old Soviet model ... all of which have failed, according to this form of thinking because the world was not ready for the reign of Administrators.
Progressivism is professional administrators; centralized decision making; the poorly defined issue of social justice; unremitting support of organized labor against capital; and abolishment of any meaningful military amongst their many and varied platforms of the day.
Well known progressives, by their own stated description are Noam Chomsky, John Dewey, Margaret Sanger, Al Franken, George McGovern, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama.
It's not in the least surprising that an insurance company with progressive ideals has found a weasel worded way to undermine the work and sacrifice of men and women serving in our military. But then, not many people understand that your car insurance policy is a financial instrument which increases in value as it ages, and that even a slight interruption in the age of the policy effectively eradicates its value. You, the driver, are not part of the equation. How you affect the value of the policy as a financial instrument in secondary markets is their issue.
Which our military men and women are defending. Amazing what insults they must bear.
Some insurance companies think people in certain professions are better drivers than others. Last time I was with 21st Century, they offered discounts for people with engineering, math, and computer science degrees.
Almost all insurance companies use the CLUE report to determine your rate. Ideally, any bad marks on your driving record are supposed to be "hidden" from your public DMV records after 3 years of the incident. However, CLUE collects and maintains a comprehensive history of your accidents/tickets. So rather than looking at your squeaky clean current DMV driving history, the insurance companies look at your CLUE report and see all the accidents and tickets you had 4, 5, 6 years ago.
I've had Progressive for over a year now and no real complaints yet. Their rates are cheaper than my previous insurance provider. And they have a pretty good website where you can administer your own account. My only complaint is that if you sign up online, they ask for your SSN to verify your identity. But I'm fairly positive they do a soft pull on your credit history.. even though they state that they don't.
Also, they sell your personal info to marketing agencies. When I opened my Progressive policy, I only used my first initial and last name. About a week later, I started receiving junk mail addressed to: my first initial and last name.
@BlackFlag55: Oh noes, quick, to the bomb shelter! Those evil left wing liberals are running insurance companies to spread their evil communism throughout the world!
The crap people believe these days.....Seriously, can someone explain to me how a CAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a company that, at the end of the day, does nothing more than give policyholders money when they have an accident, can actually push some sort of agenda through and change the economic system in the world. They're not the federal reserve. They're not some huge bank. They're not the government. They're a fucking car insurance company. The only thing a car insurance company can do to spread socialism is to stipulate that any payouts for totaled cars must be spent on a Volvo or Saab with the hopes that once everyone is driving a Swedish car, we'll all want to have the same type of economic system as Sweden. Of course, that can only happen once they turn all of the Progressive offices into Ikeas.
And the only insults the military men and women are bearing are from people like you who must use their dedication and service to this country to push some bullshit conspiracy theorist political agenda.
@krunk4ever: Having recently shopped online for auto insurance, I have to sorta recommend against your idea of trying to get multiple quotes from the same company, unless you obtain the quotes one right after the other (within moments of each other). Why? When I did this recently, with each successive quote (and company), after a day or so, the quoted rates started going up, with the same insurer.
My recommendation for shopping online for auto insurance are to wait until you are within a few days of buying, get the quotes quickly, and jump on the one you want. Be sure to get emailed confirmations of quotes you receive. Or, like me, you'll return to some of these companies a few days to a week or 2 later, and the new quotes will be $50 or more than they were the first time around.
I could make a black-humor jokey comment about this guy's situation, but I just don't think Iraq's funny. I'm quite concerned about what will happen when the troops do finally get to come home.
@BlackFlag55: See, the problem with all the "vast Left Wing conspiracy" stories I always hear is that the "Left" isn't as nearly organized as their opposition seems to believe it is. The "Right" has always been much more organized, focused, and funded compared to their Big Tent brethren. This is especially true nowadays because the only well-organized, left-leaning voting blocs worth mentioning--labor unions--have seen their membership numbers and influence implode since the 80's.
But please don't let reality get in the way of your imagination--that wouldn't be much fun.
I'm a CSR for another insurance company. The only thing that pops to my mind is if they're returning from active duty- they get a free waive into the preferred line. I'm guessing that's what it is, because prior insurance is weighted heavily into determining rates, and that wouldn't be fair the penalize the returning soldiers for not having insurance while they were being shot at?
My best guess, at least.
Oh- quick note.
ALMOST all insurance companies pull a credit report. It's not technically a hit, because it's coded different, so they can get away with saying it's not a credit check. It's called the Insurance Financial Score (IS Score). You can find out more about it via wikipedia.com
Although I and my coworkers use it on a daily basis, the higher ups don't make much of an effort to explain it other than, the higher it is, the more you pay. We have to use it, otherwise, we can't bind the policy and if we don't bind policies, we are promptly fired.
It's provided by CLUE Choicepoint as well- and depending on which company you're being quoted at, a big or not-so-big factor in your rate. Some companies are more credit intensive then others. Some companies will drop the credit check after you've been with a company a certain amount of years. And in some states (West Virginia) the insurance commissioner requires the insurance company to recheck the IS score on a rolling 36 month basis, and if it's gotten worse, your premium will reflect a higher rate.
Oh yeah, the 'bad incidents' that are supposed to be hidden after three years isn't true. They're still there. They usually hang around on the Motor Vehicle Report for about 7 years. Most things (pretty much everything except a DUI) stop being extra 3 years after the fact. Depending on the company, the bad incidents can still mess you up by eating up good driver discounts and whatnot.
Since I know it's going to come up, and folks don't realize it- going uninsured, even if you don't have a vehicle messes with your rates. The thought there, which has been passed to me by my superiors, is that you could have been driving uninsured because you have license, not all accidents get reported as well.
In essence, I suppose it boils down to a matter of traceability.
Oh yeah, if you carry higher limits such as 100/300 and you have been with a company for 5 or more years, insurance companies will give you a preferential rate to leave (depending on driving and credit history).
Any other general questions I'd be glad to take a crack at. I'm a cog at a call center, but I like to think that the people I help get insurance know a lot more, and can better handle themselves after I sell them insurance. It's kind of my penance for selling my soul, to pay my bills.
If you hit a deer or something else fuzzy - you didn't hit the fuzzy animal. That statement is indicative of fault as well that a collision took place, and the adjuster may be tempted to pay it out as a collision claim, rather then a comprehensive claim.
The poor fuzzy animal darted out into traffic or something along those lines would work- but not "It came out of no where!" because that's indicative that you weren't paying attention, thus at fault, thus making it a collision claim that hurts your insurance rate.
I have no idea how the Progressive direct website operates, but I am an independent insurance agent licensed with Progressive. I use a Progressive website dedicated to insurance agents and I can say that there is NO question on that site pertaining to military employment.
the way i'm reading this, they are only checking to make sure what you told them is factual. so, if you tried to get a service member's discount, and it turns out you're not in the service, they can adjust your rate.
i don't think it's anything nefarious.
It could be referring to the specific program he applied for. For example, if you did not actually have any recent military service, you would not qualify for the plan that offers special rates to those with recent military service.
Also, if suggests nothing about the quality of recent military service. We all realize that soldiers can be discharged from the military in any number of ways, right? Someone who was dishonorably discharged might be considered a higher risk.
All the quote suggests to me is that if you lie to them, and they find out, you will not receive the policy as quoted during the application process.
Perhaps this has to do with being dishonorably discharged from service, going AWOL, refusing to serve, or not registering once you turn 18. I am to understand that any of these disallows you from applying for a credit card at all.
military discounts?
Hilarious, you asked for a military discount and they told you that military service is bad based on their information. So it's ok to offer you a cheaper rate for being in the military, but it is not ok to offer a higher rate? You cannot have it both ways. If military service is allowed in a decision it can go bad or good. Anything else should be illegal.
I agree about using USAA. I've had them for almost 10 years and have filed 2 claims (1 homeowners / 1 auto) with no problems or increase in rates whatsoever. I didn't even know I was eligible for them until a friend told me I was (my late father was retired Army).
Progressive probably has a bunch of statistics that show war veterans to do their experience and possibly psychological trauma, are much higher risk than civilians.
A case of putting unreliable numbers above patriotism.
Astos Green lasers rulz
Consumerist -- how about a correction or retraction here? People continue to bash Progressive when they haven't read the posts that indicate that there is nothing negative here at all. Stop this before it becomes the next idiotic e-mail forward.
i like how faust actually CALLS and finds out why, and then the next several comments are how much progressive is doing evil to those in the military when it's actually used to help discount rates.
way to pay attention people.
Is it Badvertising week or something?
Between this article and the "apple support that might not really be apple support" article, we seem to just be throwing accusations all around!
Who can we surmise is being a bag of dicks next?
Wow... this article is asinine. "I want a military discount" but let me complain when the disclaimer say "your military record may affect your rate" . And the comments reek of knee-jerk patriotism. Not one of consumerist's highest point.
@t325: Yeah, I was gonna say... I can't believe the OP nor the consumerist didn't call and just find out before posting.
@faust1200: This was going to be my guess, though for a slightly different reason. The military is actually quite picky about the driving habits of active-duty personnel. Friends in the military have told me it's not good to have any sort of civilian legal problems (even things as trivial as a speeding ticket) or any credit problems, especially if you have or might ever need a security clearance. I'd guess (without any hard data to support my guess) that in general drivers in the military would be a better risk than an otherwise similar group of civilians.
I have to agree 100% with everyone that has recommended USAA. I have been using them for all of my insurance needs since 1996, and now I use them for banking services too. USAA has excellent rates and has the best customer service I have ever dealt with.
I'm going to take a bit of a counter-stance on this issue. I hate the insurance industry and the fact that politicians in Ameirca are beholden to this industry, as well as the greater financial services industry.
I am going to argue that you get what you vote for. The insurance industry discriminates against all kinds of people. Health insurance only insures healthy people and fights covering people who have a greater risk of needing to file claims.
I have worked abroad twice in my life. And each time I returned to the USA I had to pay extra for my car insurances based on the fact I had not owned a car in the previous couple of years. This discrimination cost me hundreds of dollars. Both times it took a year for the extra I had to pay to be removed.
The insurance industry argues that it is involved in determining risk, so it discriminates against people on the slightest evidence that they fit a demographic greater risk of having to file a claim.
By this logic, returning vets would be considered at a greater statistical risk of filing a claim if their population is at a greater chance of, say, reckless driving, alcoholism, etc. So if the typical returning war vet has a greater chance of, say, drinking and driving, or driving recklessly and getting into an accident, then the insurance industry leverages this risk.
I don't like this.
If you don't like this then stop complaining about those wicked, evil big government regulations. If you want more corporate responsibility, you can't expect the corporations to do it out of altruism. If a returning war vet is statistically more likely than the Average Schlub (esp. considering they are often younger) to get into a vehicular accident they why wouldn't the insurance industry leverage against this if it isn't told not to do that by "big guv-mint"?
I don't know if vets are statistically more likely to file claims, but I'm sure that's what the logic is, according to the insurance industry. But in any case, if they penalize people for not owning a car for a year or two, then OF COURSE their going to penalize people who have been in a war zone for a year.
It's ironic, because a lot of people who might be outraged over this probably expect the corporations to be more altruistic and compassionate to war veterans. But why should they? It's the government's job to ORDER them to do that -- but then that's big, evil big government regulations.
Like I said: you get what you vote for.
Folks, try READING THE ACTUAL RULE quoted above.
It says: "if your actual record is different than what you told us"
Setting aside all the b.s. about Left- and Right-wing conspiracies, I think we can all agree that if you MISREPRESENT YOUR MILITARY EXPERIENCE that it would be entirely justified to give you a higher rate.
Why would we want to actually READ the text. It's much more fun to get all upset about a problem that doesn't exist.
I rarely post a "blame the poster" comment, but I can't even fault the web site for confusing text - it's pretty clear to me that this part of the text refers to false statements about credit history, military service, or driving history.
Repeat after me "Read, then Comment"
Is this even legal? If it is, it shouldn't be. Shame on Progressive. I will happy participate in a EECB if you provide the addresses.
And thanks for serving, Ceaser.