Breathtaking Auto Insurance Premium Increase

[dizz81]

Originally Posted by x622

I'm now at 24k a year for all my cars. The worst part? If I have to actually make a claim, my rates will go up higher than what the claim was.

I wish I could just self insure...

Bro wtf? How many cars you got? 😵

[x622]

Originally Posted by dizz81

Bro wtf? How many cars you got? 😵

9, and I can only drive one at a time and I have garage keepers insurance for the ones at my shop...

[TallGibbs]

I just got my letter in the mail yesterday from State Farm; very similar to many other posts. Our condo insurance will go up about 18% and car insurance somewhere between 9% to 15% but they are "still applying for NJ Bank & Insurance approval" so it is not final yet.

[Condorll]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

Erie can shove it as far as I'm concerned. They screwed me years ago when I was in my 20s and I've never forgotten what they did. Even if they're cheaper than any other insurance company out there, I won't send a single penny to them.

I would not deal with Erie, no way. Had a very bad experience with them. Don't trust them at all. Thumbs down.

[RockCrusher]

Got my car insurance (State Farm) renewal notice in the mail the other day.

2023 M2: $684/6 months.
2024 230ix: $738/6 months.

From memory -- saves me digging through my files -- the above prices are at least $100 more per 6 months than the prior 6 month premiums.

Retired. Both cars are pleasure cars.

No tickets. No claims since January 2018.

Both cars garaged.

Put around 7K miles on the M2 in a year's time.

Will have about 7K miles on the 230 when its one year anniversary (Dec) rolls around.

I've owned two cars since early 2002. I'm seriously thinking of selling the 230ix and just "making do" with the M2.

[Ambrozie]

For everyone in this forum... here's a conceptual idea:

If you were part of an extremely wealthy cabal with ties to banking, would you not attempt to create companies that handle insurance (for shipping, health, car, home, every aspect of life), lobby government as to mandate it, and punish anyone that does not acquiesce to this system in order to forcibly tie the populace, into a system, that you ultimately profit from at the general expense of the peasants?

Just spitballing.
I assume questioning widely-accepted societal conventions is frowned upon by those that have always accepted them.

[FrankMstein]

Originally Posted by 440i6MT

For everyone in this forum... here's a conceptual idea:

If you were part of an extremely wealthy cabal with ties to banking, would you not attempt to create companies that handle insurance (for shipping, health, car, home, every aspect of life), lobby government as to mandate it, and punish anyone that does not acquiesce to this system in order to forcibly tie the populace, into a system, that you ultimately profit from at the general expense of the peasants?

Just spitballing.
I assume questioning widely-accepted societal conventions is frowned upon by those that have always accepted them.

Some traditionally don't subscribe to conspiracies.

[Ambrozie]

Originally Posted by FrankMstein

Some traditionally don't subscribe to conspiracies.

Not the correct response to what I was asking, but case in point nonetheless.

[Everchosen]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The correct response is, insurance is bought by individuals for self preservation. If you damage someone (property, body, or financially) your are responsible to make them whole. They have the right to take whatever assets you have that are of monetary value. Insurance mitigates that risk.

The Rich Cabal did not create the ethics and morals behind personal responsibility. Natural Law did.

This got philosophical very fast and I love it.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The correct response is, insurance is bought by individuals for self preservation. If you damage someone (property, body, or financially) your are responsible to make them whole. They have the right to take whatever assets you have that are of monetary value. Insurance mitigates that risk.

The Rich Cabal did not create the ethics and morals behind personal responsibility. Natural Law did.

it only takes one yambag to make things rough for everyone. An example that I have used before: Even if 10,000 people would not rob a bank, it only takes one to force the use of huge safes, sophisticated alarms and armed guards.

I view insurance similarly. The yambag that T-bones you and has no insurance, or a dime to his name, is why insurance is mandatory in some places. It isn't a nanny state, it is a yambag world.

[Everchosen]

Yambag is a fun term.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by x622

9, and I can only drive one at a time and I have garage keepers insurance for the ones at my shop...

Jesus is it a fleet of exotics or something because that comes out to over $200/mo per car. I don't think I pay anywhere close to that for any of my cars.

Originally Posted by 440i6MT

For everyone in this forum... here's a conceptual idea:

If you were part of an extremely wealthy cabal with ties to banking, would you not attempt to create companies that handle insurance (for shipping, health, car, home, every aspect of life), lobby government as to mandate it, and punish anyone that does not acquiesce to this system in order to forcibly tie the populace, into a system, that you ultimately profit from at the general expense of the peasants?

Just spitballing.
I assume questioning widely-accepted societal conventions is frowned upon by those that have always accepted them.

Which insurance is mandated other than car insurance? Which makes sense because if you damage MY property you should pay for it, by having insurance there is some guarantee that you will.

I don't know of any other insurance that just covers YOUR property that is mandated?

[DrVenture]

Just in case anyone is unclear on the terminology or concepts, when you get hit by an uninsured driver, your insurance doesn't pay to fix your car, even if you have "uninsured/underinsured" coverage. UI coverages are about bodily injury only. If your $100K car is totally by an uninsured motorist, your agent will tell you to pound sand. In a nice way, of course.

Your only recourse is to hire an attorney and sue for damages, assuming they can actually pay. Everyone should want mandatory auto insurance with tight enforcement.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

...

I don't know of any other insurance that just covers YOUR property that is mandated?

Better still, someone else is forced to carry (pay for) liability coverage, so technically the recipient of the insurance payout is not paying anything. The (potential) at fault driver is being forced to buy insurance.

I am all for it.

[Dan B]

Originally Posted by Weather Man

Insurance statistics articles are endless. Fun fact, illegal alien driving is 3 times more likely to cause a fatality accident than a licensed legal driver.

Post an actual source or it is still just your opinion.

For example, here is a source that contradicts your opinion.
https://www.cato.org/immigration-res...ion#background

[jkoral]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Just in case anyone is unclear on the terminology or concepts, when you get hit by an uninsured driver, your insurance doesn't pay to fix your car, even if you have "uninsured/underinsured" coverage. UI coverages are about bodily injury only. If your $100K car is totally by an uninsured motorist, your agent will tell you to pound sand. In a nice way, of course.

Is this true in all states? Just from a quick google for MA, first hit:

If you are involved in an accident with someone that does not have insurance coverage or are involved in a hit-and-run that totals your car, uninsured motorist coverage would reimburse you for the ACV of your vehicle. This coverage is a requirement for Massachusetts auto policies.


I also read that although MA had the second lowest uninsured driver rate in the country (3.5%), we border one of the 2 states in the country that do not require car insurance (NH - Live Free or Die).

[XutvJet]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Just in case anyone is unclear on the terminology or concepts, when you get hit by an uninsured driver, your insurance doesn't pay to fix your car, even if you have "uninsured/underinsured" coverage. UI coverages are about bodily injury only. If your $100K car is totally by an uninsured motorist, your agent will tell you to pound sand. In a nice way, of course.

Your only recourse is to hire an attorney and sue for damages, assuming they can actually pay. Everyone should want mandatory auto insurance with tight enforcement.

Not true. My wife was hit by an uninsured motorist that totalled her car. We had UIM coverage and paid the deductible and got a check for the car. About 5 years later we got a check for the deductible after the guy had paid up fully with State Farm.

[MJBO]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Just in case anyone is unclear on the terminology or concepts, when you get hit by an uninsured driver, your insurance doesn't pay to fix your car, even if you have "uninsured/underinsured" coverage. UI coverages are about bodily injury only. If your $100K car is totally by an uninsured motorist, your agent will tell you to pound sand. In a nice way, of course.

Your only recourse is to hire an attorney and sue for damages, assuming they can actually pay. Everyone should want mandatory auto insurance with tight enforcement.

I won’t pretend to understand US insurance policies, but that makes no sense.

Here in Australia, if you’re involved in an accident that isn’t your fault and you have comprehensive insurance (as opposed to third party property), you’re still best to put in your claim with your insurer and let them sort it out with the other party.

I was hit by a driver that claimed she was insured, but it turns out she was insured as of an hour AFTER the crash. I had already claimed through my insurance, so I’d say rather than risk a charge for fraud she decided to pay for it.

Since I went through my insurance chasing her down for the $25k+ repair wasn’t my problem.

Third party injury coverage is a mandatory part of registration and is separate.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by jkoral

Is this true in all states? Just from a quick google for MA, first hit:

If you are involved in an accident with someone that does not have insurance coverage or are involved in a hit-and-run that totals your car, uninsured motorist coverage would reimburse you for the ACV of your vehicle. This coverage is a requirement for Massachusetts auto policies.


I also read that although MA had the second lowest uninsured driver rate in the country (3.5%), we border one of the 2 states in the country that do not require car insurance (NH - Live Free or Die).

I know it is true in Illinois. I have discussed it with my agent directly. But, after doing a Google, it appears to differ by state. So, I stand partially corrected. It never occurred to me that it varied by state.

Illinois: Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury (UM) Coverage
Covers you for your bodily injury caused by a hit-and-run driver or an at-fault driver who has no auto liability insurance. Currently, Illinois law requires uninsured motorist limits of at least $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident."

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by MJBO

I won’t pretend to understand US insurance policies, but that makes no sense.

Here in Australia, if you’re involved in an accident that isn’t your fault and you have comprehensive insurance (as opposed to third party property), you’re still best to put in your claim with your insurer and let them sort it out with the other party.

I was hit by a driver that claimed she was insured, but it turns out she was insured as of an hour AFTER the crash. I had already claimed through my insurance, so I’d say rather than risk a charge for fraud she decided to pay for it.

Since I went through my insurance chasing her down for the $25k+ repair wasn’t my problem.

Third party injury coverage is a mandatory part of registration and is separate.

Interestingly, my wife was side-swiped by a fellow who had let his insurance lapse by a week or so. There was apparently a grace period and he paid his premium and the insurance company handled it.

[MJBO]

Originally Posted by DrVenture

Interestingly, my wife was side-swiped by a fellow who had let his insurance lapse by a week or so. There was apparently a grace period and he paid his premium and the insurance company handled it.

Lucky for them in that case, in mine the woman had setup a policy an hour after the incident and tried to claim.

Her new insurer rang me to confirm the timeline of events, and I had images of the scene and her licence all time and GPS stamped. Unsurprisingly she withdrew the claim when she realised she was staring down the barrel of insurance fraud.

[DrVenture]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Not the same subject. Your citation regards statistics of illegal alien drunk driving as causality of driving deaths.

This web citation seems to support the 3x statement.

https://barrypgoldberg.com/forget-il...sured-drivers/

"Los Angeles Uninsured Motorist Attorney Barry P. Goldberg is urging the California Legislature and California Consumers to support licensing, training and liability insurance for all drivers in California. Mr. Goldberg believes that it is not really a political issue—it is a common sense issue.

The recent report from the Department of Motor Vehicles found that unlicensed illegal aliens were three times more likely to cause a fatal collision than properly trained and licensed drivers. This is consistent with the reported estimates of uninsured drivers in the state to an estimated 14% to as much as 20%. In some areas of the state that estimate is above 50%!"

Not being able to get a license, means not being able to qualify for insurance. I was actually rear-ended by a young woman in that exact situation. To make matters worse, how are you going to sue someone without any money or even a valid address? In my case the damage was very minimal, but I had little recourse. I called for a police report, not knowing the full situation, and she was arrested.