<![CDATA[Consumerist: auto insurance]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: auto insurance]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/auto insurance http://consumerist.com/tag/auto insurance <![CDATA[ When your credit score sustains a dent, make ... ]]> When your credit score sustains a dent, make sure your car doesn't. Because higher car insurance is just what you need when you've lost your job. Auto insurers use customers' credit scores as part of the formula to determine premiums. Shop around—different companies assign different weights to credit score in their calculations. [MainStreet.com]

]]>
Consumerist-5283252 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:45:26 EDT Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5283252&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Progressive Responds To Question About Using Recent Military Service To Determine Rates And Eligibility ]]> recentmilitaryservice.jpgThe Progressive auto insurance company saw our post "Why Is Progressive Using "Recent Military Service" To Determine Rates And Eligibility?" and responded to let us know that it's just to make sure that service members aren't penalized for having a lapse in their coverage due to the fact that they've been deployed overseas. They've apologized for the confusing wording on the website and have pledged to rewrite it for clarity. Full official statement, inside...

Cristy writes:

I am from Progressive and would like to respond to your posting titled "Why is Progressive Using 'Recent Military Service' to Determine Rates and Eligibility?"

First, I would like to apologize to Ceaser and anyone else who got the impression that Progressive uses military service to determine rates and eligibility. This is not true, but it's easy to see how Ceaser and others could have gotten that impression based on the language on our Web site.

The reason we would ask about military service is to make sure we are not unfairly charging a higher rate to service men and women who have had a lapse in insurance coverage.

If you've bought car insurance before, you know that most companies offer you a better rate if you have continuous insurance coverage, and it's the same with Progressive. But, someone who is deployed overseas without access to a car does not need insurance, so they may not have it. But we certainly don't want that to hurt them in terms of their rate. So, if a person had a lapse in coverage because they were in the military, we would offer them the same (better) rate they would have gotten if they had had no lapse in coverage. The majority of states require insurers to do this, but we do it voluntarily in all states regardless of whether it's required because it's the right thing to do. Please let me know if this makes sense; if not, I will try to explain it better!

As for the confusing language on our Web site, I'm very sorry about that and we are now in the process of getting it changed. That language is a disclosure about our comparison rating service, where we give you our rates and the rates of some of our competitors. The language is meant to convey that some companies may consider military service in rating, and if they do, it might make the rate we gave you for the other company inaccurate. But unfortunately, the way it's worded, it sounds like we may use recent military service as a reason not to offer insurance, which is not the case.

The last thing we want to do is make anyone in the military feel that we're treating them with anything less than the respect they deserve. We want to make sure we don't charge higher rates to people who don't have continuous car insurance coverage because they were deployed overseas. If you are in the military and have been deployed overseas, please make sure your insurance company or your agent knows this so that you are not penalized for not having continuous car insurance. Thank you for hearing me out, and again, I am sorry for the confusing language that led to this misunderstanding.

Cristy Cote
Progressive Public Relations

PREVIOUSLY: Why Is Progressive Using "Recent Military Service" To Determine Rates And Eligibility?

]]>
Consumerist-382732 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:22:54 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=382732&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Is Progressive Using "Recent Military Service" To Determine Rates And Eligibility? ]]> con_progressivemilitaryfine.jpg[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?
]]>
Consumerist-381743 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:46:34 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381743&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The 6 MPH Crash That Costs $8,000 To Repair ]]> Minivan bumpers may not protect much, but they sure do cost a lot to repair, according to the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety. The IIHS smashed six minivans to test their bumpers and found that all racked up repair bills exceeding $5,000. The Nissan Quest was singled out as a "miserable failure," costing $8,000 to patch-up.

Minivan designs help in bumper tests: The minivans performed somewhat better in the 4 bumper tests than the midsize cars the Institute tested earlier this year. This is in part because the minivans' front bumpers are an inch or so higher off the ground, compared with car bumpers (about 17 inches versus 16). The extra height means the minivans' front bumpers usually didn't underride the test barrier, which exacerbates the damage.

Another important design aspect is that most of the minivans the Institute tested have third-row seats that fold into the floor, which requires pushing the vehicles' frame rails out wider. Because the bumper systems attach to the ends of the rails, the rear bumpers (but not the front ones) also are wider. This means they do a better job of protecting the rear corners of the minivans from damage in low-speed collisions. For example, the taillights on the minivans weren't damaged in any of the rear corner tests while the headlights were damaged in 4 of the 6 corresponding front corner tests.

The Insurance Institute claims, "it's damage that consumers shouldn't have to pay for or put up with the aggravation of having to get their vehicles repaired," but their crocodile tears are really geared towards boosting their own profit margins by reducing the cost of insurance claims. At least they posted slow-motion footage from the test crashes on YouTube.

Minivan bumper test results: Nissan Quest is by far the worst performer [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]
Insurance Institute For Highway Safety Reveals Results Of Minivan Bumper Tests [YouTube]

]]>
Consumerist-337072 Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:30:47 EST Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=337072&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Best Site For Auto Insurance Quotes ]]> Kiplinger's recommends InsWeb for a quick way to snag a bunch auto insurance quotes.

...provides instant quotes from up to six companies (the number varies by state), including big names such as AIG and Liberty Mutual, plus quotes by phone or e-mail from American Family, Nationwide and MetLife.

Free Money Finance notes one drawback, the site requires you to fork over your Social Security number, which is generally a bad idea. However, doing so allows the insurer to look up your driving record to give a more accurate quote.

Then again, you could always kick it old school and just pick up the dang phone and call around. — BEN POPKEN

The Best Site for Auto Insurance Quotes [Free Money Finance]

]]>
Consumerist-216552 Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:32:46 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=216552&view=rss&microfeed=true