ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1
Fred Motta
ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1
I am collecting information for my Anti-GEICO web page and would like to
get your horror stories which I can post to help others in determining what
kind of auto or motorcycle insurance policy they currently have so that
they can get the RIGHT insurance for their needs.
I have nothing to do with underwriting insurance or the insurance industry.
If you are reading this and thinking, "Well, I'm happy with GEICO.", let me
first say that I'm not trying to convince you to switch insurance companies
(although you might be wiser for doing so). I still subscribe to GEICO for
2 autos and 2 motorcycles until my attorney advises me to drop them like
lead. Until then, I would strongly suggest you examine your policy,
question it, and hope that you and others can benefit or contribute to my
collection of stories.
Why am I doing this??
1. First experience with an insurance (GEICO) claim that's turning sour.
2. What I subscribed to is NOT what they sold me.
3. If I saw this somewhere, maybe I would have questioned my GEICO policy.
RULES:
1. If you have anything to do with selling or representing the insurance
industry or defending their position, don't bother posting a reply.
2. Tell me about your experience, big or small; doesn't matter if you won
or loss----this is to help others (such as "changed my policy after
realizing it didn't cover [blah-blah...]").
3. Your experience doesn't have to be limited to GEICO.
MY MISSION: LEGISLATIVE REFORM
I know this sounds crazy, but several years ago manufacturers resisted
putting the "Nutrition Facts" label on their products until it became law.
I want to see some standardization that simplifies or conveys the same
message across all insurance policies as the first page of the policy, not
to be hidden in declaration pages, cover letters, etc. Does this make
sense?
Until then, I will continue to publish my ANTI-GEICO Insurance letters in
every newsgroup on the net and getting involved with the insurance
commissioner's office, and my congressman. Thank you.
MrKablooey ©
I've had no problems with GEICO, even after a couple claims over the past
few years. I would recommend them based on my experiences (and I have done
so).
Fred Motta <m...@halcyon.com> wrote
robert morella
what specifically did Geico do to you to piss you off so bad?
Steven Suttle
As reported in Car and Driver, Geico has given thousands of dollars worth
of laser guns to police departments. Dump these losers!!!! Is this how
you want your premiums spent?
MrKablooey Š <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote in article
<01bcc0b8$80506880$b823ae98@default>...
> I've had no problems with GEICO, even after a couple claims over the past
> few years. I would recommend them based on my experiences (and I have
done
> so).
>
Jason Smith
Fred,
Go get 'um!
I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
-Jason
jsm...@toccoafalls.edu
On 14 Sep 1997 02:04:06 GMT, "Fred Motta" <m...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1
>
>I am collecting information for my Anti-GEICO web page and would like to
[snip]
Harry Crawford King III
>I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>-Jason
>jsm...@toccoafalls.edu
I think that I remember reading somewhere that a lot of insurance
companies do that. I want to think that I recieved a publication from
USAA that bragged that they did it - in the order of safety. The same
insurance company that dropped me for hitting a deer. Then tried to
TRIPLE my rate when I reapplied. Well, needless to say, I went elsewhere.
Harry
--
Harry Crawford King III
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtd845a
Internet: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
Harry Crawford King III
In article <342187ad....@news.execpc.com>,
Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
>
>Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same. Insurance companies
>also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save money when the
>severity of accidents is reduced.
>
I disagree completely. I would bet that the reason they give the cops
radar guns is because it means they get to charge US higher premiums when
we get tickets. Its all total and complete BS. Insurance companies are
more corrupt than the federal government.
Has anyone ever seen any evidence that the person who occasionally gets
tickets for going 70 in a 55 is more likely to cause accidents?
In 8 years of driving, I have made one claim. One. I hit a frikkin' deer
(it happens a lot in GA). I was immediately dropped. They tripled my
insurance rates in order for me to get a policy back. I would have had to
pay $1000 every 6 months on an 81 VW Rabbit diesel for liability ONLY (I
hit the deer in my mothers car). They would have made back the money from
me alone in 15 months. Not to mention the rest of my family. Now, I am
paying less than $750 every 6 months for full coverage. But that is still
a total of $7500 in the time I am paying off my car. What, 40% of the
cars value (97 Saturn SC2)? Its a farce.
However, now that I am with the current insurance company, I have a lot
less to complain about. Good company. I got them becuase of an accident
I was in with another guy (his fault) and his company was WONDERFUL in
handling the situation. Turned out they were TONS cheaper, too (almost
half as much). Checked out a couple others... Allstate was over twice
what I am paying ($1600/6 months). Those hands better be damn good. They
better be golden for that kind of money.
Oh, yeah. All insurance companies save money with lower speed limits?
How about, all insurance companies MAKE MORE money with lower speed
limits, because nobody is going to drive that rediculously slow.
Felix Miata
Eye of the Storm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:57 GMT, n...@my.com (Jason Smith) wrote:
>
> >Fred,
> >Go get 'um!
> >I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
> >was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
> >that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>
> also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save money when the
> severity of accidents is reduced.
>
> E-mail: dpdr...@execpc.com
>
> Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
> And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw.
>
> - Neil Peart
My memory is rusty on this subject, so forgive if I err. I seem to
recall GEICO was more vehement than other companies in favor of 55 MPH
back when it happened to us in the '70's, as well as one of the most
vocal in trying to stop its repeal. They also jumped in bed heavy with
states' efforts to ban radar detectors. They are one of the quickest to
drop convicted "speeders", in spite of the evidence that the best
drivers habitually drive over the limit. All they really care about is
their profits.
--
" The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty . . .'The Rights
of the Colonists as Christians'. . . may be best understood by reading
and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver . . . which
are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
Samuel Adams
Team OS/2 running v4 FP3 via RSUCSF.ZIP
FIXx ADDRESSs TOo REPLYy.
Felix Miata
robert morella
>However, now that I am with the current insurance company, I have a lot
>less to complain about. Good company. I got them becuase of an accident
>I was in with another guy (his fault) and his company was WONDERFUL in
>handling the situation. Turned out they were TONS cheaper, too (almost
>half as much). Checked out a couple others... Allstate was over twice
>what I am paying ($1600/6 months). Those hands better be damn good. They
>better be golden for that kind of money.
What is the name of the insurance company that you use?
Harry Crawford King III
In article <5vk5e2$g...@camel3.mindspring.com>,
I wrote that. I highly recommend them. At least as far as insurance
companies are concerned.
Scott
Felix Miata wrote:
> My memory is rusty on this subject, so forgive if I err. I seem to
> recall GEICO was more vehement than other companies in favor of 55 MPH
> back when it happened to us in the '70's, as well as one of the most
> vocal in trying to stop its repeal. They also jumped in bed heavy with
> states' efforts to ban radar detectors. They are one of the quickest to
> drop convicted "speeders", in spite of the evidence that the best
> drivers habitually drive over the limit. All they really care about is
> their profits.
> --
As a long time reader of _Car & Driver_ and a lifetime NMA member (back
when it was CRTL), the above sentiments seem to be the best (so far) at
explaining why informed motorists would do well to steer clear of GEICO
insurance.
Scott
NMA #104895
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <3421b8df...@news.mindspring.com>, <baldycotton.com> wrote:
}Once upon a time, gtd...@prism.gatech.edu (Harry Crawford King III)
}wrote:
}>>I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
}>>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
}>>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
}
}>I think that I remember reading somewhere that a lot of insurance
}>companies do that.
}
}Here in NJ, the rates are the highest in the land.
We'll never get any change as long as people buy into the idea of
mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
companies have a captive customer base.
}So my only ticket in the last decade is costing me:
}$1500 + $410 = $2,010.00 (plus the $100 which I don't mind paying)
}Nineteen hundred fucking dollars surcharge for one speeding ticket.
Someone on the Miata list was quoted $1800 over three years for making
a $900 claim. Others in this thread have suggested NOT making a claim
in order to avoid increases... and they call this "insurance".
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Jim Tuccillo
Harry Crawford King III wrote:
>
> In article <342187ad....@news.execpc.com>,
> Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
> >
> >Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same. Insurance companies
> >also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save money when the
> >severity of accidents is reduced.
> >
> I disagree completely. I would bet that the reason they give the cops
> radar guns is because it means they get to charge US higher premiums when
> we get tickets. Its all total and complete BS. Insurance companies are
> more corrupt than the federal government.
>
> Has anyone ever seen any evidence that the person who occasionally gets
> tickets for going 70 in a 55 is more likely to cause accidents?
>
> In 8 years of driving, I have made one claim. One. I hit a frikkin' deer
> (it happens a lot in GA). I was immediately dropped. They tripled my
> insurance rates in order for me to get a policy back. I would have had to
Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
think so ). IMHO, hitting a deer should be covered under comprehensive
but it isnt. Collision claims raise your rates ( or get you dropped ) -
comprehensive claims dont. If you think that you were dropped unjustly
or had your rates raised unjustly then you should have contacted the
state insurance commissioner ( or whatever they call the state agency
the regulates the insurance companies in Georgia). I have done just this
on a collision claim in the past ( hit debris in the road that did $2K
damage - was considered collision because I hit the debris ) with
excellent results - no increase in my rates. Basicly, it you hit
something it is collision - if something hits you ( tree falls on car,
rock hits windshield ) it is comprehensive. Petition the state insurance
sheriff tha next time you hit a deer ( or dont make a claim ).
> pay $1000 every 6 months on an 81 VW Rabbit diesel for liability ONLY (I
> hit the deer in my mothers car). They would have made back the money from
> me alone in 15 months. Not to mention the rest of my family. Now, I am
> paying less than $750 every 6 months for full coverage. But that is still
> a total of $7500 in the time I am paying off my car. What, 40% of the
> cars value (97 Saturn SC2)? Its a farce.
>
> However, now that I am with the current insurance company, I have a lot
> less to complain about. Good company. I got them becuase of an accident
> I was in with another guy (his fault) and his company was WONDERFUL in
> handling the situation. Turned out they were TONS cheaper, too (almost
> half as much). Checked out a couple others... Allstate was over twice
> what I am paying ($1600/6 months). Those hands better be damn good.
It pays to shop around.
They
> better be golden for that kind of money.
>
> Oh, yeah. All insurance companies save money with lower speed limits?
> How about, all insurance companies MAKE MORE money with lower speed
> limits, because nobody is going to drive that rediculously slow.
>
Jason Smith
This is also along the lines of what I had read and more the point I
was trying to convey. Guess I soulda said it in the fist place, huh
-Jason
jsm...@toccoafalls.edu
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:50:13 -0400, Felix Miata <mrm...@gate.net>
wrote:
>Eye of the Storm wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:57 GMT, n...@my.com (Jason Smith) wrote:
[snip]
>states' efforts to ban radar detectors. They are one of the quickest to
>drop convicted "speeders", in spite of the evidence that the best
>drivers habitually drive over the limit. All they really care about is
>their profits.
>--
Marc
dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye of the Storm) said:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:57 GMT, n...@my.com (Jason Smith) wrote:
>>Fred,
>>Go get 'um!
>>I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
>>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
>>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same.
Some do, some don't.
>Insurance companies also supported the 55 MPH speed limit.
Yup.
>All insurance companies save money when the
>severity of accidents is reduced.
Nope.
In TX, the regulation is such that they gain and lose nothing when the
severity of accidents changes. They just change their rates to reflect the
higher expendatures, and the other companies do the same. They do,
however, get to charge some people a higher scale that isn't in the normal
regulation. Having tickets puts drivers in this group. There isn't
anything related to risk that puts them in this group, so the extra charges
are almost pure profit.
Perhaps you should read up on the insurance industry (and don't bother
asking the agents themselves, they don't know the law and risks, as they
don't have to, but they just follow what they are told).
Marc
For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
baldycotton
>>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
>>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>I think that I remember reading somewhere that a lot of insurance
>companies do that.
It's not only Geico. What we need in this country is a revolution.
Here in NJ, the rates are the highest in the land.
Two years ago, I got a speeding ticket for 18 miles over the limit.
Yes, I was speeding. Guilty as charged. It was about midnight on Route
80, a lonely 6 lane highway. 73 in a 55 zone.
I got a ticket for $100.00 and four points. My fault, my ticket,
altho 55 is just plain stupid. I have a 94 Intrepid. I have never had
an accident of any kind in 26 years of driving. Not one.
Not even Bambi's Aunt Lucy...
The points stay for 3 years, plus through the balance of the calendar
of the last year. So I got the ticket in February, which means I get 4
points for 36 months, plus 10 months thru December. 46 months.
My insurance company is charging me a surcharge of $500 per year for
those three years plus about $410 for the extra ten months.
So my only ticket in the last decade is costing me:
$1500 + $410 = $2,010.00 (plus the $100 which I don't mind paying)
Nineteen hundred fucking dollars surcharge for one speeding ticket.
And DON'T pardon my fucking french! Oh, I suppose I could have given
the $2k to a lawyer in the hopes that he could get me off...duh.
Now you now why they like buying radar guns.
They'd buy AK 47's if there were a profit to be made.
I saw a woman the other day get nailed by a cop while she was doing
about 40 in a 25 zone. All I could do is shake my head and think, "too
bad you're not good lookin' babe, 'cause you're gonna get fucked
without receiving flowers.
Look at it like this. If the cops use each radar gun to give out ONLY
ONE ticket per day, (yeah, right?) and the insurance company gets ONLY
HALF what they are charging me, that comes to about $90,000 per year
per gun. Multiply that times an actual number of tickets, and you'll
get an idea what a great investment it is.
** WIDE GLIDE **
Eye of the Storm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:57 GMT, n...@my.com (Jason Smith) wrote:
> >Fred,
> >Go get 'um!
> >I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
> >was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
> >that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
> Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same.
> Insurance companies also supported the 55 MPH speed limit.
> All insurance companies save money when the severity of accidents
> is reduced.
And they make more money by being able to raise premiums!
You know after you get a ticket or two!!!
--
-Karl Fengler---------------- BRONCO*351 - FXDWG -
---------------------------- karl_f...@hp.com -
-!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!-
Steve Roddel
In Indiana, the insurance lobby got a law passed that requires you to
get a proof of insurance form filled out by your insurance company if
you receive a moving violation ticket, or are involved in an accident,
whether your fault or not! This so that they do not have to go through
the expense of doing licence checks. If you fail to prove you're
insured, the state suspends your licence for 90 days. Most times they
don't even notify you.
Had a friend that got a $25 seat belt violation ticket as the result of
a stop. Had to have the form filled out by his insurance company.
Nearly doubled his insurance rates, because he DIDN'T WEAR HIS ANY
F*CKING SEAT BELT! As far as I'm concerned, this is government in bed
with the insurance industry, pure and simple.
MrKablooey Š wrote:
> I have no problems with them donating money and/or products to police
> departments or whomever they want. There's nothing wrong with laser
> guns.
> As long as they insure me, they can do as they please.
>
> Steven Suttle <sut...@gte.net> wrote in article
> <5vie0f$cdu$3...@gte2.gte.net>...
> > As reported in Car and Driver, Geico has given thousands of dollars
> worth
> > of laser guns to police departments. Dump these losers!!!! Is this
> how
> > you want your premiums spent?
> >
> > MrKablooey Š <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote
> > > I've had no problems with GEICO, even after a couple claims over
> the
> past
> > > few years. I would recommend them based on my experiences (and I
> have
> > done
> > > so).
> > >
> > > Fred Motta <m...@halcyon.com> wrote
> > > > ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1
> > > >
> > > > I am collecting information for my Anti-GEICO web page and would
> like
> > to
satyr
On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:59 GMT, dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye
of the Storm) wrote:
>>I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
>>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
>>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>
>Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same. Insurance companies
>also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save money when the
>severity of accidents is reduced.
And they make more money if they hike up your rates because you got a
ticket. The more tickets handed out, the more premium dollars they
collect. If each $1500 radar gun is responsible for 200 tickets a
year and each ticket raises someone's premium by $100, that is $20,000
in extra revenue each year. $100,000 total if the gun is used for
five years.
>
>Dnison Penndragon
>E-mail: dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com
>
>{To respond, please delete "REMOVE-THIS" from my e-mail address.}
Steven Suttle
This guy really deserved to get flamed! Alas, I am too tired.
MrKablooey © <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote in article
<01bcc246$3a6f4040$96078fa8@default>...
> Jason Smith <n...@my.com> wrote
> > I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
> > was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
> > that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>
> That's bad *why*?
>
cheyenne
Harry Crawford King III <gtd...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
> In 8 years of driving, I have made one claim. One. I hit a frikkin'
deer
> (it happens a lot in GA). I was immediately dropped. They tripled my
> insurance rates in order for me to get a policy back.
You most likely had your policy cancelled because you fit in a high risk
group. Under 25, single, maybe a few moving violations (speeding
tickets?). They really don't care whether you hit a deer or a tree or even
another vehicle---the point is they had to pay out a claim. And why should
they insure you (and lose money) when they can insure a 55 year old driver
with no tickets for several years and probably never an insurance claim
(and make money)? You must understand the cardinal rule of
corporations---they are in business for one reason: to make money for
their shareholders, not to provide employment for people, nor even for
people to like them. If you don't care for the way they operate, there's
only one way to get even with them. Buy stock in their company and join
them in the profitability. It's lots more enjoyable that way.
Joseph M. Saul
Jim Tuccillo wrote:
>Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
>considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
>think so ). IMHO, hitting a deer should be covered under comprehensive
>but it isnt.
It apparently varies either by state, or by insurance company, because
USAA has told me that hitting a deer falls under comprehensive, but
swerving to avoid a deer and hitting a tree would be collision. They,
like the Michigan State Police, advise motorists to hit deer rather than
attempting evasive maneuvers that are more likely to get you and your
passengers dead. We discussed this at some length (no, it hasn't happened
to me, but we do have a lot of deer in the area).
Joe Saul
jms...@umich.edu
Dan Masterson
Followup-To: nj.market.autos,rec.autos.4x4,rec.autos.antique,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.makers.chrysler,rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.autos.makers.honda,rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys,rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata,rec.auto
s
References: <01bcc0b2$76f1c8c0$b5203fce@defiant> <342187ad....@news.execpc.com> <5vk4ht$b...@acmex.gatech.edu> <341DAB...@radia1.com> <5vkupe$5dp$1...@newbabylon.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Distribution:
Joseph M. Saul (jms...@us.itd.umich.edu) wrote:
: Jim Tuccillo wrote:
You think hitting a dear won't get you and you're passengers dead? Let
a 12pt buck come up over your hood and through your windshield!
R.I.P.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
||| Email: dmas...@freenet.columbus.oh.us | This space for sale or lease |||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Marc
Jim Tuccillo <j...@radia1.com> said:
>Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
>considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
>think so ).
Not in TX. They can drop you for a collision with a car, but not with an
animal.
MrKablooey ©
I have no problems with them donating money and/or products to police
departments or whomever they want. There's nothing wrong with laser guns.
As long as they insure me, they can do as they please.
Steven Suttle <sut...@gte.net> wrote in article
<5vie0f$cdu$3...@gte2.gte.net>...
> As reported in Car and Driver, Geico has given thousands of dollars worth
> of laser guns to police departments. Dump these losers!!!! Is this how
> you want your premiums spent?
>
> MrKablooey © <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote
MrKablooey ©
Steven Suttle
I agree completly! How in the hell so you correlate safety with an
insurance company handing out laser guns at a couple of grand apiece?????
If I found out Nation Wide was doing this, I would drop their ass in a
heartbeat. Geico could care less about safety. What they DO care about is
that you don't file a claim against them. I read just about every car mag
on the newsstand and Geico is the company that is always coming up when it
comes to raising rates and dropping you when you request a service from
them that you have been paying for.
Harry Crawford King III <gtd...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<5vk4ht$b...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
> In article <342187ad....@news.execpc.com>,
> Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
> >
> >Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same. Insurance
companies
> >also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save
money when the
> >severity of accidents is reduced.
> >
> I disagree completely. I would bet that the reason they give the cops
> radar guns is because it means they get to charge US higher premiums when
> we get tickets. Its all total and complete BS. Insurance companies are
> more corrupt than the federal government.
>
> Has anyone ever seen any evidence that the person who occasionally gets
> tickets for going 70 in a 55 is more likely to cause accidents?
>
> In 8 years of driving, I have made one claim. One. I hit a frikkin'
deer
> (it happens a lot in GA). I was immediately dropped. They tripled my
> insurance rates in order for me to get a policy back. I would have had
to
> pay $1000 every 6 months on an 81 VW Rabbit diesel for liability ONLY (I
> hit the deer in my mothers car). They would have made back the money
from
> me alone in 15 months. Not to mention the rest of my family. Now, I am
> paying less than $750 every 6 months for full coverage. But that is
still
> a total of $7500 in the time I am paying off my car. What, 40% of the
> cars value (97 Saturn SC2)? Its a farce.
>
> However, now that I am with the current insurance company, I have a lot
> less to complain about. Good company. I got them becuase of an accident
> I was in with another guy (his fault) and his company was WONDERFUL in
> handling the situation. Turned out they were TONS cheaper, too (almost
> half as much). Checked out a couple others... Allstate was over twice
> what I am paying ($1600/6 months). Those hands better be damn good.
Brad Cuppy
I wondered who the @$$hole was in the IN General Assemble who
thought of this bill. Even though I am an ex-Indiana resident,
I still keep up what goes on back there along with what goes
on here in Colorado. I was looking at the IN legislative pages
and they revised this stupid law to where on something like
the 2nd moving violation gets the insurance proof demand from
the IN BMV.
The idiot who sponsored the bill several years ago was a Bill
Bailey (D-Seymour). You can check the IN General Assembly
page at http://www.ai.org/legislative/. This coming winter,
the General Assembly meets for their short session and we
need to prod them in passing a speed limit hike. The contact
person is Gary Cook (D-Plymouth) who chairs the House Transportation
Committee. He refused to hold hearings on the speed limit bills
last session. The sponsor of the Speed Limit hike bills is a
Dean Mock (R-Elkhart).
Brad
Harry Crawford King III
In article <341DAB...@radia1.com>, Jim Tuccillo <j...@radia1.com> wrote:
>Harry Crawford King III wrote:
>>
>considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
With every policy I have had, hitting an animal was considered "no-fault"
and covered under comprehensive. Kind of like having a tree fall on your
car. The accident report listed the deer at fault, or something to that
affect. My estimated speed was listed at 55 (it was 60 when I saw the
deer). The insurance company just sucked. So I got a new one.
Jim Tuccillo
Marc wrote:
>
> Jim Tuccillo <j...@radia1.com> said:
>
> >Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
> >considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
> >think so ).
>
> animal.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
Will they increase your rates because you filed a collision claim with
an animal ?
Brian Funk
Harry Crawford King III wrote:
> All I have to say is that I sincerely hope you are reading the posts
> regarding this thread. Insurance companies are getting the blessing of
> lawmakers to rob us. And what sucks is that it is legal. WORSE than
> taxes - at least we get to vote every x# of years.
Such trends will continue to drive the price of owning and opperating a
private car/truck up, till we all live in a city and ride mass transit.
Smog compliance, gas prices, insurance rates (and everyone will eventually
be forced to have it), registration costs, and just the cost of new
vehicles are all conspiring to drive the poor out of the market. In twenty
years, I would bet that many of the middle class will be buss'in it
regularly and such sports as ours will be just a memory.
There are just too many of us......................
brian
LeAnne Davis
Steve Roddel wrote:
>
> In Indiana, the insurance lobby got a law passed that requires you to
> get a proof of insurance form filled out by your insurance company if
> you receive a moving violation ticket, or are involved in an accident,
> whether your fault or not! This so that they do not have to go through
> the expense of doing licence checks. If you fail to prove you're
> insured, the state suspends your licence for 90 days. Most times they
> don't even notify you.
In Texas, to get tags for a vehicle (required yearly), proof of
insurance must be shown. To get safety/smog inspection for a vehicle
(required yearly), proof of insurance must be shown. To get a driver's
license (used to be required every 4 years, now every 6), one must show
proof of insurance. Accidents where law enforcement show up, requires
drivers to show proof of insurance (recorded on accident reports). If
you get pulled over by law enforcement, you must show POI. When we pay
our insurance premiums, we get a card that serves as proof of insurance
for the policy period. Thankfully, Texas hasn't wised up to the POI form
y'all have in Indiana...
> Had a friend that got a $25 seat belt violation ticket as the result
> of a stop.
$25 for no seatbelt? My dad refused to wear his after the law first
went on the books here & it cost him $75 for a first offense.
As for Geico, they flat out refused to *quote* insurance for me. My
hubby
has an 89 mile one way commute & I commute 54 miles one way. We have
Farmer's & have been very pleased with it since we first moved our
policy over about 2 years ago. We have 5 autos covered currently & pay
about $700/6 month period...We're both over 25 & we have full coverage
on the two "new" vehicles & only liability on the two '65 Mustangs &
the 1950 Plymouth. We're considering a classic auto policy for the
Ponies & the Plymouth after the restorations are closer to complete.
LeAnne
--
LeAnne Davis mailto:LeAnne...@ti.com
Configuration Management 972-952-5386
Raytheon TI Systems
Std Disclaimer: These are my opinions, get your own....
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty/haden.html
Please do not send me unsolicited e-mail trying to sell me anything...I
live in an old house - I HAVE NO MONEY & you (and possibly your domain)
will be added to my e-mail filter....my hit list
http://www.geocities.com/~fannincounty/netscape-mail-filter.html
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> We'll never get any change as long as people buy into the idea of
> mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
> companies have a captive customer base.
>
Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
assets except for an 81 Cutlass that is now smashed?? There is a very
good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
--
89 5.0 LX HB K&N Pro 5.0 Flow Master Mac
73 Charger 340 Holley 660 New Process 4spd Chrysler 8.75/w 4.10
SureGrip
65 Thunderbird Town Landau FE390
62 Chrysler 300 413 Wedge 8bbl Cross Ram
63 Dodge Dart 413 Max Wedge 8bbl short ram
It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited
commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227.
I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each
unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial
email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving
nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
To Reply, remove the NOSPAM and send.
Harry Crawford King III
In article <01bcc246$1effa160$96078fa8@default>,
MrKablooey © <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote:
>
>I have no problems with them donating money and/or products to police
>departments or whomever they want. There's nothing wrong with laser guns.
>As long as they insure me, they can do as they please.
>
regarding this thread. Insurance companies are getting the blessing of
lawmakers to rob us. And what sucks is that it is legal. WORSE than
taxes - at least we get to vote every x# of years.
Harry
Michael McKeon
Harry Crawford King III wrote:
> >What is the name of the insurance company that you use?
> >
> State Farm. I was afraid I'd be accused of being affiliated with them
> if
> I wrote that. I highly recommend them. At least as far as insurance
> companies are concerned.
>
Ditto. I know of a couple of other insurance companies that have lower
rates, but I haven't been willing to give up on State Farm just yet. (I
have been told that some of the least expensive insurance companies are
hell to deal with when it comes to claims. Not the case with State
Farm.)
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Steven Suttle wrote:
> As reported in Car and Driver, Geico has given thousands of dollars
> worth
> of laser guns to police departments. Dump these losers!!!! Is this
> how
> you want your premiums spent?
>
Yes, I agree. As I told this guy in E mail, Not thinking after going
through ther whole deal she asked if i had a radar detector. I said I
had one on my bench, (for repair, I'm an electronic tech.) and she says,
"I'm sorry, but we can not offer you insurance at this time." The
second time I called I went all the way but their rates were a good bit
higher than USAA and they said they would not insure my Thunderbird
simply because of it's age, not EVEN for liability. The under writer
explained that a 65 modle car was just too old, and should nott be on
the road. I shoulod consider selling it off to be recycled. Needless
to say I called him a few choice names refering to his mothers heritage
before slamming the phone.
Brian Funk
cramer wrote:
> > ......................................................But if you
> > want to solve the problem, it's necessary to give up mandatory
> > insurance. Political solutions such as insurance commissions don't
> > work .......................
> No, the solution is to actually enforce the law. ..........
Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those
who ignore it.
Here in California we have had the must have insurance law for a few years
now.......
BUT they can't/couldn't enforce it because the insurance companies are
fighting giving out the information and the state's own computer systems
are so antiquated (DMV) that they couldn't handle it anyway.
So now the legislators are having to go back and require the insurance
companies to comply (they resist because of the costs), they say it's
privledged information. Ha! The DMV is updating and now requires that we
send proof of insurance when we register.
I resent having to pay for all the folks who drive without.....
brian
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Jim Tuccillo wrote:
> Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
>
> considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
> think so ). IMHO, hitting a deer should be covered under comprehensive
>
> but it isnt. Collision claims raise your rates ( or get you dropped )
> -
> comprehensive claims dont. If you think that you were dropped unjustly
>
> or had your rates raised unjustly then you should have contacted the
> state insurance commissioner ( or whatever they call the state agency
> the regulates the insurance companies in Georgia). I have done just
> this
> on a collision claim in the past ( hit debris in the road that did $2K
>
> damage - was considered collision because I hit the debris ) with
> excellent results - no increase in my rates. Basicly, it you hit
> something it is collision - if something hits you ( tree falls on car,
>
> rock hits windshield ) it is comprehensive. Petition the state
> insurance
> sheriff tha next time you hit a deer ( or dont make a claim ).
>
>
Yes, I have been with USAA since I started driving at 14. I cannot
imagine a non-agent company like them dropping for one accident, let
alone one as unavoidable as a deer hopping in front of you...
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <3425da93....@news.execpc.com>,
Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}
}>If I'm in an accident that is charged to be my fault I'm not too
}>worried about covering my own expenses; I can afford to fix my
}>car or buy another; what I worry about is being sued and loosing
}>my entire life savings. I know someone who was driving without
}>insurance and was in a accident that was deemed her fault and she
}>literally lost everything and was plunged into debt.
}
}That's a good lesson. If you are ever sued, after receiving notice of the suit,
}liquidate your life savings as soon as possible and put it all into gold bullion in
}your basement.
Put it into platinum and wear it. They'll take the basement.
(And that piddly $40,000 insurance won't save you... they can pay
their $40k and go home)
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Scott wrote:
>
>
> As a long time reader of _Car & Driver_ and a lifetime NMA member
> (back
> when it was CRTL), the above sentiments seem to be the best (so far)
> at
> explaining why informed motorists would do well to steer clear of
> GEICO
> insurance.
>
> Scott
> NMA #104895
Enlightens us, please. What's NMA?
Harry Brosofsky
Max,
I just spoke to USAA. They said I am covered for an offroad accident
(as long as I'm not in a sanctioned racing event). They advised me to
keep receipts and currnet photos to assist the adjuster if I have a
claim. BTW, deer hits are handled like rollovers...driver is at fault
so the premiums might go up. This info is directly from the supervisor
of the underwriting department.
Later,
Harry
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) wrote:
>
> Jim Tuccillo wrote:
>
> > Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
> >
> > considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
> > think so ). IMHO, hitting a deer should be covered under comprehensive
> >
> > but it isnt. Collision claims raise your rates ( or get you dropped )
> > -
> > comprehensive claims dont. If you think that you were dropped unjustly
> >
> > or had your rates raised unjustly then you should have contacted the
> > state insurance commissioner ( or whatever they call the state agency
> > the regulates the insurance companies in Georgia). I have done just
> > this
> > on a collision claim in the past ( hit debris in the road that did $2K
> >
> > damage - was considered collision because I hit the debris ) with
> > excellent results - no increase in my rates. Basicly, it you hit
> > something it is collision - if something hits you ( tree falls on car,
> >
> > rock hits windshield ) it is comprehensive. Petition the state
> > insurance
> > sheriff tha next time you hit a deer ( or dont make a claim ).
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I have been with USAA since I started driving at 14. I cannot
> imagine a non-agent company like them dropping for one accident, let
> alone one as unavoidable as a deer hopping in front of you...
>
> --
> 89 5.0 LX HB K&N Pro 5.0 Flow Master Mac
> 73 Charger 340 Holley 660 New Process 4spd Chrysler 8.75/w 4.10
> SureGrip
> 65 Thunderbird Town Landau FE390
> 62 Chrysler 300 413 Wedge 8bbl Cross Ram
> 63 Dodge Dart 413 Max Wedge 8bbl short ram
>
> It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited
> commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227.
> I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each
> unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial
> email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
> My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving
> nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
>
> To Reply, remove the NOSPAM and send.
--
mailto:ha...@harryworld.com
http://www.harryworld.com/harry/jeep.html
97 TJ Sport, 5-speed, 3.55's, hardtop, A/C, tilt, Tuffy Series II
console, Rhino Lined tub and rockers, Cobra 29 LTD WX CB, Pioneer
DEH-45DH CD, Currie Rockcrawler II front and rear bumpers with tire
rack, Currie rocker skids, Warn XD9000i winch, Mickey Thompson
Challenger wheels, BFG M/T 33x12.50-R15, Rubicon Express fixed yoke
kit and driveshaft, Rubicon Express 4.5" Rockbound suspension,
Doetsch Tech DT3000 shocks, Empty bank account.
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
cheyenne wrote:
> You most likely had your policy cancelled because you fit in a high
> risk
> group. Under 25, single, maybe a few moving violations (speeding
> tickets?). They really don't care whether you hit a deer or a tree or
> even
> another vehicle---the point is they had to pay out a claim. And why
> should
> they insure you (and lose money) when they can insure a 55 year old
> driver
> with no tickets for several years and probably never an insurance
> claim
> (and make money)? You must understand the cardinal rule of
> corporations---they are in business for one reason: to make money for
>
> their shareholders, not to provide employment for people, nor even for
>
> people to like them. If you don't care for the way they operate,
> there's
> only one way to get even with them. Buy stock in their company and
> join
> them in the profitability. It's lots more enjoyable that way.
A 55 year old is less likely to hit a deer than a 20 year old ?????
Steve Cramer
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
> In article <341EB291...@mindspring.com>,
> MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) <maxwedg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> }Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> }
> }> We'll never get any change as long as people buy into the idea of
> }> mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
> }> companies have a captive customer base.
> }>
> }
> }Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
> }assets except for an 81 Cutlass that is now smashed??
Gotta agree with Max here, after being hit similarly.
>
> Oh, yeah, mandatory insurance will really get them off the road, just
> like it does now.
>
> }There is a very
> }good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
>
> If you want to suck insurance company cock, that's fine. But if you
> want to solve the problem, it's necessary to give up mandatory
> insurance. Political solutions such as insurance commissions don't
> work because unlike their customers, insurance companies can
> spend a lot of their effort molding such boards to fit their desires,
> creating a captive regulatory agency.
My, Matt, how quaintly you express yourself.
No, the solution is to actually enforce the law. In Georgia, you just
have to give the liability policy number to register your car. You can
let it lapse later, or probably even make up a number. In South
Carolina, the DMV checks to see if the policy is in force. If it isn't,
you get one polite letter before the man in the Smokey the Bear hat and
shades shows up at your door to take your plates. At least that's how it
used to be.
Some people won't buy liability if it isn't mandatory. And of course the
bank considers collision/comprehensive mandatory to protect their
investment.
Steve
--
Test Scoring & Reporting Services Sometimes, you never can
University of Georgia always tell what you least
Athens, GA 30602-5593 expect the most.
Bill Garrett
jcla...@enterprise.desperado.dyn.ml.org (Jeff Claggett) writes:
} On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:56:51 -0400, Michael McKeon <mo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
} >Ditto. I know of a couple of other insurance companies that have lower
} >rates, but I haven't been willing to give up on State Farm just yet. (I
} >have been told that some of the least expensive insurance companies are
} >hell to deal with when it comes to claims. Not the case with State
} >Farm.)
}
} least as best I can remember) been with them for at least 13 years, same
} agent at that. Never had to make a major claim, just a couple of towing
} coverages on my last car (Old car with bad tires :). I'll be moving out of
} state in about 2 months and will have to switch agents, but you better
} believe I will be staying with SF.
As long as we're singing the praises of State Farm Insurance, I'll
add mine. I've been with SF for almost 10 years and pleased with them
the whole time. I've lived in 4 different cities in that time, and
there's always been an agent within a few miles of home. My 4 claims
(1 my fault, 3 not) have been resolved quickly and to my satisfaction.
I've price-shopped other insurance carriers several times, and State
Farm has always been among the cheapest.
Speaking of Geico... when I bought a new Jeep Cherokee two months ago,
they quoted me literally TWICE the price of State Farm. (And I'm a
low-risk driver with no accidents in the past 5 years and never a ticket!)
--
Bill Garrett Nobody, on their deathbed, ever said,
wfg1 @ concentric.net "I wish I'd spent more time at the office."
Craig Kerr
In article <-16099711...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
<bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>cramer wrote:
>Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those
>who ignore it.
A big ding on the poor schmucks who can't afford insurance in the first place?
That will show'em.
>Here in California we have had the must have insurance law for a few years
>now.......
And like TX, you pay higher rates, and like TX, people who can't afford
insurance still don't have it.
>BUT they can't/couldn't enforce it because the insurance companies are
>fighting giving out the information and the state's own computer systems
>are so antiquated (DMV) that they couldn't handle it anyway.
Yes, just what we all need, lets give the politicians as much information on
us as they want. Pretty soon, they will be telling us what kind of toilets to
put in our homes. (Hint: They already do that.)
>So now the legislators are having to go back and require the insurance
>companies to comply (they resist because of the costs), they say it's
>privledged information. Ha! The DMV is updating and now requires that we
>send proof of insurance when we register.
>
>I resent having to pay for all the folks who drive without.....
>
And I resent having to pay higher rates because of you whiners who think that
making something illegal means it will never happen. Why don't you just
make automobile accidents illegal? I resent paying higher rates so you can
continue your delusion that everyone else on the road has insurance.
Craig
Kyle Flessner
Harry Crawford King III wrote:
> Oh, yeah. All insurance companies save money with lower speed limits?
> How about, all insurance companies MAKE MORE money with lower speed
> limits, because nobody is going to drive that rediculously slow.
>
Maybe someone can answer this: If an Insurance Company XXX employee
gets a ticket or files a claim, are they subject to the same rate hikes?
If not, I would say there might be a shot at changing the policy
surrounding rate hikes.
Kyle
Craig Kerr
In article <341EEB...@coe.uga.edu>,
Steve Cramer <cra...@coe.uga.edu> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>have to give the liability policy number to register your car. You can
>let it lapse later, or probably even make up a number. In South
>Carolina, the DMV checks to see if the policy is in force. If it isn't,
>you get one polite letter before the man in the Smokey the Bear hat and
>shades shows up at your door to take your plates. At least that's how it
>used to be.
>
>Some people won't buy liability if it isn't mandatory. And of course the
Some people won't buy liability if it is mandatory.
And of course, I really want to pay the taxes for all the manpower it takes
to keep up with insurance policies. And the insurance rates because everyone
on the board that "controls" them gets a nice cushy job with the insurance
company after serving a couple of years.
Really, people, this is a bit of an extreme response when (at least in TX)
you are dumb not to get uninsured motorist anyway.
And of course, I would rather have law enforcement officials do something about
crime, not nonpayment of protection money to the insurance mafia.
Craig
Bruce Jackson
In article <5vkq0v$j...@wanda.vf.pond.com>,
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
> Someone on the Miata list was quoted $1800 over three years for making
> a $900 claim. Others in this thread have suggested NOT making a claim
> in order to avoid increases... and they call this "insurance".
One of the first rules of insurance (any kind of insurance, not just
auto) is to not insure against expenses you can afford to pay on your
own. You are better off self-insuring as much as you can. Many
people would be better off buying only public liability and public
damage insurance and getting as high a deductible as they can. If
they put the money they saved in the bank odds are that they could
cover any expenses that pop up and still come out ahead.
If I'm in an accident that is charged to be my fault I'm not too
worried about covering my own expenses; I can afford to fix my
car or buy another; what I worry about is being sued and loosing
my entire life savings. I know someone who was driving without
insurance and was in a accident that was deemed her fault and she
literally lost everything and was plunged into debt.
FWIW, I'm a 36 year old male who only gets a ticket every few
years and have never been in an accident. For me comprehensive
and collision with a $500 deductible is only about $100 year
more expensive than PL & PD insurance with the maximum deductible.
Right now full insurance looks like a better deal for me. If
I have bad luck and get nailed a few times with tickets or if
I'm culpable in an accident the difference between the two levels
of insurance would probably be great enough to warrant going back
to PL & PD.
As far as experience with insurance companies go my only one was
rather painless. My only claim was when my car was hit by a
drunk, uninjured, unlicensed motorist in my apartment parking
lot. My company (Metropolitan) gave me a very prompt and fair
settlement on my totaled car. Because of my positive experience
I haven't even shopped around for better rates. With all the
horror stories I hear about insurance companies I'd rather
stick with one I've gotten good results from than save a few
bucks on an unknown quantity.
Happy motoring,
--
Bruce Jackson - b.a.j...@ieee.org
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <341EB291...@mindspring.com>,
}> mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
}> companies have a captive customer base.
}>
}
}Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
}assets except for an 81 Cutlass that is now smashed??
Oh, yeah, mandatory insurance will really get them off the road, just
like it does now.
}There is a very
}good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
If you want to suck insurance company cock, that's fine. But if you
want to solve the problem, it's necessary to give up mandatory
insurance. Political solutions such as insurance commissions don't
work because unlike their customers, insurance companies can
spend a lot of their effort molding such boards to fit their desires,
creating a captive regulatory agency.
Harry Crawford King III
In article <341EE54C...@harryworld.com>,
Harry Brosofsky <ha...@harryworld.com> wrote:
>
>Max,
>
>I just spoke to USAA. They said I am covered for an offroad accident
>(as long as I'm not in a sanctioned racing event). They advised me to
>keep receipts and currnet photos to assist the adjuster if I have a
>claim. BTW, deer hits are handled like rollovers...driver is at fault
>so the premiums might go up. This info is directly from the supervisor
>of the underwriting department.
>
>Later,
>
>Harry
>
about hitting a deer. I had USAA at the time. They dropped me. Then
said that they would let me have a new policy for 3X the cost of the
original one. Needless to say, I switched to some one else. I believe it
was Progressive. I know for a fact that hitting a deer is covered as
comprehensive. I added it to my car after hitting the deer in my mother's
(which was new i.e. fully covered).
It was our understanding that teh deer thing was covered under
comprehensive. I guess the agent can lie to you over the telephone, and
you won't know the difference if you don't read all of the fine print.
Now, I have State Farm, as do my parents (now on different policies). The
deer thing is covered under comprehensive. We have made sure. The
reason: Simple. There are only two types of people that live in suburban
Georgia: Those who have hit a deer, and those who haven't hit a deer -
yet.
As a side note. When I had Progressive, they would not give my
comprehensive nor collision on my 67 GTO. We just wanted comprehensive
becuase of the deer situation. They wouldn't do it. Now, I have full
coverage with Sate Farm for something like $200 every 6 months with
unlimited mileage. They realize that people who have those kinds of cars
typically take care of them (but they don't think the same thing about my
Saturn!)
Harry
(not the same one as above)
Gerald F. Michaels
Craig Kerr wrote:
>
> In article <-16099711...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
> <bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >cramer wrote:
> >Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those who ignore it.
>
> A big ding on the poor schmucks who can't afford insurance in the first place?
> That will show'em.
>
> >Here in California we have had the must have insurance law for a few years now.......
>
> And like TX, you pay higher rates, and like TX, people who can't afford insurance still don't have it.
> >
>
.
We have the manditory insurance law here in Ohio and so far I have been
able to afford the insurance.
What I do remember is that when it became a law to have it, the rates
doubled over night, then doubled again within a year. Seems that they
did away with the law of supply and demand, and replaced it with the law
of demand and supply.
The law demands it and the insurance companies supply it, at about 4
times the cost it should be.
just my 2 cents
Jerry
.
Christopher G. Behler
dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com (Eye of the Storm) wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 15:03:57 GMT, n...@my.com (Jason Smith) wrote:
>>Fred,
>>Go get 'um!
>>I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that Geico
>>was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
>>that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
>Why is that? I'm sure other insurance companies do the same. Insurance companies
>also supported the 55 MPH speed limit. All insurance companies save money when the
>severity of accidents is reduced.
The idea isn't to save insurance companies money (so they can just add
it to their bottom line), it's to insure risk. I want to see the
actuarial studies that show that a ticket for doing 70 in a 55 (passed
for energy reasons for godsakes), on an expressway (you will note the
term expressway would indicate speed), increases the risk of insuring
that person as much as they are charging....I think not.
And if 55 is good for reducing the energy of a collision, then
45...35...25...15...5....oh, just walk, is better. The insurance
companies can blow it out their ass.
You touched a nerve.
CB
98' Mustang Cobra Coupe (in 'come and get me' red)
Harry Crawford King III
>The law demands it and the insurance companies supply it, at about 4
>times the cost it should be.
>
>just my 2 cents
> Jerry
>.
Harry
Jeff Claggett
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:56:51 -0400, Michael McKeon <mo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Ditto. I know of a couple of other insurance companies that have lower
>rates, but I haven't been willing to give up on State Farm just yet. (I
>have been told that some of the least expensive insurance companies are
>hell to deal with when it comes to claims. Not the case with State
>Farm.)
One of the reasons my family is still with SF is because we have (at
least as best I can remember) been with them for at least 13 years, same
agent at that. Never had to make a major claim, just a couple of towing
coverages on my last car (Old car with bad tires :). I'll be moving out of
state in about 2 months and will have to switch agents, but you better
believe I will be staying with SF.
--
Jeff Claggett Willmington Island, GA
jcla...@bellsouth.net http://users.invweb.net/~jclagget
Brian Funk
In article <5vmp17$b3l$1...@news.tamu.edu>, cra...@eagle.tamu.edu (Craig
Kerr) wrote:
> In article <-16099711...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
> <bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >cramer wrote:
> >Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those
> >who ignore it.
>
> A big ding on the poor schmucks who can't afford insurance in the first place?
> That will show'em.
Ok Craig, Perhaps I missed your solution. If it was anything other than
"you pay and I won't" please correct me.
As I see it, if you are a poor schmuck, and have nothing, including an
insurance policy to right the damages that you do, then everyone else that
you come into contact with, pays for you.
Why is that fair or right? Because you are poor? Is driving a car a
privilege or a right?
I think it is a privilege. Something that you get to do if you can pay
your way, like the ownership and use of most things. You may disagree I
suppose.
The reason that our rates are higher in states that are just now beginning
to address this problem, is because (among other things) the laws are not
enforced YET and a LOT of folks are not paying at all.
You haven't even begun to experience the pain of not owning your share of
the cost, but you will, because most folks who are in the system want a
level playing field and resent that the poor schmucks and others opt out
of their responsibilities. Anyone with any assets can't afford not to
insure and they will eventually make sure that you pay too.
My solution to the inequity was strict enforcement to get everyone to pay.
What's yours? To drive on my dime?
While it's true a few might escape (for a while), how many escape getting
their yearly reg. tags? Years ago it was common out here, but now It's a
pretty well enforced law. Very few folks are running around with out
registration these days in California. The penalties are just too great.
Years ago we could get by not paying federal and state income tax on time,
the penalties were weak. Have you tried being late or not paying at all
lately? Big time enforcement so most of us pay up.
Getting compliance is not that hard Craig. So that excuse just doesn't
hold water.
Insurance enforcement could be done. You have it, or when you attract
"their" attention they get you, "smack you up the side of the head" (so to
speak). Take your money, car, or your license. If they get you again you
might get to loose some time.
You will pay for the paper or you will loose big time. And those of us who
have been paying all along won't shed a tear for you.
If the laws were enforced. If you and I had to have proof, and that proof
is actually checked upon (by computer directly with OUR insurance company
every day that we are registered to drive in the state) . We will all get
insurance or ride the buss, the hassle of not paying up is just too great
after a while.
Weather my rates go down or not, I couldn't care less! As long as everyone
on the road had to pony up like I do! That's just the way that I am,
selfish I guess.
Enjoy your free ride, it's almost over. Besides if you don't want to
insure, you can just post a bond and avoid the "problem" (for you) all
together.
Good luck with that straw dog, I think that your cries of fearing
government intervention are just a cover for you not wanting to pay
.............. AT ALL.
brian
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <3424d955....@news.execpc.com>,
Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}<maxwedg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
}>
}>> We'll never get any change as long as people buy into the idea of
}>> mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
}>> companies have a captive customer base.
}>>
}>
}>Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
}>good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
}
}responsibility if they are allowed to interact with society.
As long as people have the attitude that the way to show
responsibility is to pay an insurance company to take on that
responsibility, the insurance companies are going to have their
license to steal.
Harry Crawford King III
>Just food for thought. I can't remember where, but I heard or read
>somewhere that 1 in every 4 drivers in GA are uninsured, despite the
>mandatory insurance law.
>
I meant to ask if anyone had any idea how that relates to non-mandatory
states. Considering that one state had rates quadruple, it would be
interesting to see how that works. Kind of differences in philosophy. Do
you make more money by selling more at a lower price or less at a higher?
Harry Crawford King III
Just food for thought. I can't remember where, but I heard or read
somewhere that 1 in every 4 drivers in GA are uninsured, despite the
mandatory insurance law.
Harry
Craig Kerr
In article <341EB291...@mindspring.com>,
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) <maxwedg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>
>> We'll never get any change as long as people buy into the idea of
>> mandatory insurance. As long as there is mandatory insurance, the
>> companies have a captive customer base.
>>
>
>Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
>assets except for an 81 Cutlass that is now smashed?? There is a very
>good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
>
And, of course, since it has become mandatory in TX, I have never heard of
this happening. NOT!
When will you people catch on the the fact that no matter how hard you drill
people for not having insurance they will still drive without it?
If you think insurance is such a wonderful panacea, why don't you get uninsured
motorist as well? Anyone who thinks that manadatory liability insurance
prevents this sort of thing from happening is deluding themselves. How many
people muster enough money to get that card and then don't make another
payment until it expires?
Mandatory insurance does nothing to prevent this, it does a lot to line the
pockets of the insurance companies. There is no way to guaruntee that every
car on the road has liability. Get uninsured motorist and quit crying about
it.
Craig
Harry Crawford King III
>
> Incidential to stop is what it is usually called. And GA just removed
>that clause. You can now specifically be pulled for not wearing seat belt.
>
Many thanks to our wonderful Lt. Gov. Pierre Howard for that one. He
cried and moaned about the increase in speed limit, so the other law
makers had to appease him somehow:-(
Frank Wentz
In article <01bcc0b2$76f1c8c0$b5203fce@defiant>, "Fred Motta"
<m...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1
>
> I am collecting information for my Anti-GEICO web page and would like to
> get your horror stories which I can post to help others in determining what
> kind of auto or motorcycle insurance policy they currently have so that
> they can get the RIGHT insurance for their needs.
>
I have been a satisfied GEICO customer since 1969, yes, almost 30 years.
I have had some interesting claims and have never had any thing but good
service.
examples: 1969 corvette stolen (i had been a new policy holder for two
weeks), Geido found me another one and bought it for me.
69 malibu totaled by uninsured motorist - paid in full
hit from behind and sued for back injury, GEICO took care of it.
and three other accidents that were my (or my wifes fault) all claims
were taken care of immediatly and fairly.
now just what is your problem?
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
References: <01bcc0b2$76f1c8c0$b5203fce@defiant> <5vkq0v$j...@wanda.vf.pond.com> <341EB291...@mindspring.com> <3424d955....@news.execpc.com> <5vmna7$d...@wanda.vf.pond.com>
Organization: Primenet - Indianapolis POP
Distribution:
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
: As long as people have the attitude that the way to show
: responsibility is to pay an insurance company to take on that
: responsibility, the insurance companies are going to have their
: license to steal.
Paretto just rolled in his grave.
Spiros
--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos email: stri...@primenet.com
at home in Central Indiana www.primenet.com/~strianta
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> If you want to suck insurance company cock, that's fine. But if you
> want to solve the problem, it's necessary to give up mandatory
> insurance. Political solutions such as insurance commissions don't
> work because unlike their customers, insurance companies can
> spend a lot of their effort molding such boards to fit their desires,
> creating a captive regulatory agency.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
>
> of justice is no virtue."
As I said, what am I supposed to do when I get hit by somone with no
insurance?? You mean to say you condone some idiot smahing my car to
hell and then *I* have to pay for it? Get real....
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Craig Kerr wrote:
> When will you people catch on the the fact that no matter how hard you
> drill
> people for not having insurance they will still drive without it?
>
> If you think insurance is such a wonderful panacea, why don't you get
> uninsured
> motorist as well? Anyone who thinks that manadatory liability
> insurance
> prevents this sort of thing from happening is deluding themselves.
> How many
> people muster enough money to get that card and then don't make
> another
> payment until it expires?
>
> Mandatory insurance does nothing to prevent this, it does a lot to
> line the
> pockets of the insurance companies. There is no way to guaruntee that
> every
> car on the road has liability. Get uninsured motorist and quit crying
> about
> it.
>
> Craig
Umm no. First if you dont have the mandate, EVERYONE would drop it
that had an old beat up car and/or didn't care. And in Louisiana we
have road blocks and checks. If you don't have insurance your car gets
impounded and sold. Even if it's "your friends car" or your "aunt'es
car"....
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Eye of the Storm wrote:
> But then one should be insured against uninsured motorists anyway.
>
> Dnison Penndragon
> E-mail: dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com
>
> {To respond, please delete "REMOVE-THIS" from my e-mail address.}
>
> Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
> And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw.
>
> - Neil Peart
Yes, but I still lose my deductable and risk having my rates go up.
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar)
Colin Brodsky wrote:
> >
Here when you drop liability the company sends a form to DMV stating
that fact.
speedracer
Your missing the point. Insurance companies are corrupt and just want your money. What
better scam than a government law that guaranties your business. You have to have
insurance to drive legally. Think about how many cars are on the road. That's a lot of
customers.
Br
Eye of the Storm wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:50:13 -0400, Felix Miata <mrm...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >My memory is rusty on this subject, so forgive if I err. I seem to
> >recall GEICO was more vehement than other companies in favor of 55 MPH
> >back when it happened to us in the '70's, as well as one of the most
> >vocal in trying to stop its repeal. They also jumped in bed heavy with
> >states' efforts to ban radar detectors. They are one of the quickest to
> >drop convicted "speeders", in spite of the evidence that the best
> >drivers habitually drive over the limit. All they really care about is
> >their profits.
>
> If the evidence truely showed that the best drivers habitually drove over the limit,
> then the insurance companies would specifically look for a history of speeding
> tickets in order to find the best drivers (and give them lower rates).
Colin Brodsky
> >Have you ever been hit by someone with no insurance, no job, and no
> >assets except for an 81 Cutlass that is now smashed?? There is a very
> >good purpose for manditory liability, and that should NEVER be changed!
>
> And, of course, since it has become mandatory in TX, I have never heard of
> this happening. NOT!
>
> people for not having insurance they will still drive without it?
I've heard estimates that state 50% of drivers in the San Antonio city
limits are uninsured. The general scam is to buy a temporary policy long
enough to get tags and an inspection each year and then pray you don't get
pulled over during the other 11 months. Or even better, buy a policy for
a year and never pay after the downpayment. You have the proof form, but
aren't covered. This happens all the time.
One thing I've wondered is if they can do anything to detect a fake proof
form? They would be very easy to generate on a computer - just need the
company logo on it somewhere and model it after a real one. They
accept photocopies or even faxes which blur it enough that you could
never distinguish a fake. With the way
they rape you on rates for a second car, I've certainly considered it for
my '73 that I drive maybe once a week at best. That's hardly worth paying
$800/year extra for on top of my Rambler's insurance. I can only wreck
one car at any given instance in time and it pisses me off that companies
like Allstate think you should pay double liability on two cars. (oh wait
- they did say I'd get a whopping 20% off for the second car... what a
baragin...)
-Colin
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <3421eee2....@news.execpc.com>,
Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}wrote:
}
}>In article <3424d955....@news.execpc.com>,
}>Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}
}>}You have a point of course. People should have to show a reasonable amount of
}>}responsibility if they are allowed to interact with society.
}
}>responsibility is to pay an insurance company to take on that
}>responsibility, the insurance companies are going to have their
}>license to steal.
}Paying an insurance company isn't the only way you can show
}responsibility. You can also deposit an amount of money equal to the
}liability and damage minimums in a trust fund. A good way to go for
}anyone with a spare $100,000 sitting around.
Not when you figure the opportunity loss on that $100,000. The bond
alternative is deliberately made to be out of reach -- it's just there
so states can claim not to actually require mandatory insurance. And,
of course, there are other exceptions allowing corporations and school
districts to self-insure without a bond. Mandatory insurance is only for the
little people.
Here's a crazy idea: How about letting the little people not pay for
damage until they actually cause it?
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <3422ef7d....@news.execpc.com>,
Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}wrote:
}
}>In article <3425da93....@news.execpc.com>,
}>Eye of the Storm <dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
}>}
}>}>If I'm in an accident that is charged to be my fault I'm not too
}>}>worried about covering my own expenses; I can afford to fix my
}>}>car or buy another; what I worry about is being sued and loosing
}>}>my entire life savings. I know someone who was driving without
}>}>insurance and was in a accident that was deemed her fault and she
}>}>literally lost everything and was plunged into debt.
}>}
}>}liquidate your life savings as soon as possible and put it all into gold bullion in
}>}your basement.
}>
}>Put it into platinum and wear it. They'll take the basement.
}>
}>(And that piddly $40,000 insurance won't save you... they can pay
}>their $40k and go home)
}
}It will save you a bundle for run of the mill accidents.
Except that I pay for them TWICE. Once before in the form of
premiums, and once afterwards in the form of increased premiums (that
often exceed the cost of the accident) over three years. For small
accidents I don't need insurance, for large accidents insurance isn't
big enough to help. And large enough insurance is prohibitively
expensive unless you are a homeowner and have access to umbrella
liability policies.
MrKablooey ©
Or don't have anything to say? Perhaps you should see if I've misspelled
anything, and start with that.
Steven Suttle <sut...@gte.net> wrote
> This guy really deserved to get flamed! Alas, I am too tired.
>
> MrKablooey © <mrkab...@kablooey-intl.com> wrote
> > Jason Smith <n...@my.com> wrote
> > > I remember reading in Car & Driver (or was it Road & track) that
Geico
> > > was supplying, free of charge, radar guns to smaller police forces
> > > that couldn't afford them. Since I read that, I have stayed away.
> >
> > That's bad *why*?
> >
>
Jon Porter
Spamming 101 - How it works
A guy posts a single off-topic message to a bunch of newsgroups. That
single message becomes DOZENS of off-topic messages for days as everyone
responding to it cross-posts it right back to every news group. Please
folks, if you have to respond to "Re: ANTI-GEICO INSURANCE #1" have the
courtesy to just post it to the news group you're reading it in. Right
now the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low is some news groups, and
this type of behavior doesn't help.
John Riddle
Dan Masterson (dmas...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) wrote:
:
: You think hitting a dear won't get you and you're passengers dead? Let
: a 12pt buck come up over your hood and through your windshield!
Thats what the windshield wipers are for! :)
Felix Miata
Eye of the Storm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997 16:50:13 -0400, Felix Miata <mrm...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >My memory is rusty on this subject, so forgive if I err. I seem to
> >recall GEICO was more vehement than other companies in favor of 55 MPH
> >back when it happened to us in the '70's, as well as one of the most
> >vocal in trying to stop its repeal. They also jumped in bed heavy with
> >states' efforts to ban radar detectors. They are one of the quickest to
> >drop convicted "speeders", in spite of the evidence that the best
> >drivers habitually drive over the limit. All they really care about is
> >their profits.
>
> If the evidence truely showed that the best drivers habitually drove over the limit,
> then the insurance companies would specifically look for a history of speeding
> tickets in order to find the best drivers (and give them lower rates).
>
> Dnison Penndragon
Want to buy a bridge? Unless you are reading goverment or insurance
industry propaganda this is exactly what the statistics show. Insurers
want lowest possible risk, but they spend their energy looking for
excuses to give people higher rates, not lower rates. If you want a
better rate, you have to find it, it isn't going to find you. Did you
ever get a notice from your insurer after your oldest conviction or
claim was 3 or 5 years ago and you were now being given a rate
reduction? Some might have slipped them through in the form of a reduced
increase, but not likely a real decrease. I'd probably have a heart
attack if someone proved to me this ever happened to anybody. They've
been hollering for years speed kills. Well, as a general rule, only
collisions kill automobile occupants, so their credibility starts out
short of a full dose.
Just for a laugh, every couple years I fill out GEICO's quote request
form just to see how much higher they are than State Farm. Its always a
good laugh.
--
"When the ultra-liberals lose elections, they fight all the more
desperately for control of our third branch, the courts. Why? Because
the courts control the constitution and the constitution is the 'trump
card' in politics. That's why this war is crucial. Now, there are only
two sides really in this struggle. Either the constitution controls the
judges, or the judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork
Team OS/2 running v4 FP3 via RSUCSF.ZIP
FIXx ADDRESSs TOo REPLYy.
Felix Miata
Scott
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) wrote:
>
> Scott wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > As a long time reader of _Car & Driver_ and a lifetime NMA member
> > (back
> > when it was CRTL), the above sentiments seem to be the best (so far)
> > at
> > explaining why informed motorists would do well to steer clear of
> > GEICO
> > insurance.
> >
> > Scott
> > NMA #104895
>
> Enlightens us, please. What's NMA?
National Motorist's Association. Used to be known as Citizens for
Rational Traffic Laws (CRTL). It's mainly a political lobbying
organization. Remember the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) of 55 mph
across the country? They're the guys who got it changed.
They're the only people who go up against money-grabbers like the
insurance companies who lobby governments for anti-motorist laws and
supply law enforcement agencies with 'revenue enhancing devices' under
the guise of 'safety'.
They'll also help with defense materials should you go to court (which
is your legal right) to defend yourself against moving violations. I
think they'll even pay your fine if you go to court and lose.
National Motorist's Association
402 West 2nd Street
Waunakee, WI 53597
A year's membership starts at $29 for an individual. It's money well
spent, considering the price of a moving violation these days.
Scott
Marc
Colin Brodsky <cbro...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> said:
>One thing I've wondered is if they can do anything to detect a fake proof
>form?
No.
>They would be very easy to generate on a computer - just need the
>company logo on it somewhere and model it after a real one. They
>accept photocopies or even faxes which blur it enough that you could
>never distinguish a fake.
Yup. I know someone who did just that. He carried a photocopy of a policy
he doctored on a computer. He printed out copies for his whole family, and
re-printed them every time the "policy" would expire.
Marc
For email, remove second "y" from Gum...@tamu.edu
Jeff Claggett
On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:35:12 GMT, Eye of the Storm
<dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 09:43:32 -0400, LeAnne Davis <leanne...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>>$25 for no seatbelt? My dad refused to wear his after the law first
>>went on the books here & it cost him $75 for a first offense.
>
>I believe Wisconsin still has the exemption law for seatbelt violations. You can't
>be ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt unless you are ticketed for something else.
Incidential to stop is what it is usually called. And GA just removed
that clause. You can now specifically be pulled for not wearing seat belt.
--
Nevets
On 16 Sep 1997 20:10:10 GMT, wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE (Bill Garrett)
wrote:
>jcla...@enterprise.desperado.dyn.ml.org (Jeff Claggett) writes:
>} On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 07:56:51 -0400, Michael McKeon <mo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>}
>} >Ditto. I know of a couple of other insurance companies that have lower
>} >rates, but I haven't been willing to give up on State Farm just yet. (I
>} >have been told that some of the least expensive insurance companies are
>} >hell to deal with when it comes to claims. Not the case with State
>} >Farm.)
>}
>} One of the reasons my family is still with SF is because we have (at
>} least as best I can remember) been with them for at least 13 years, same
>} agent at that. Never had to make a major claim, just a couple of towing
>} coverages on my last car (Old car with bad tires :). I'll be moving out of
>} state in about 2 months and will have to switch agents, but you better
>} believe I will be staying with SF.
>
>As long as we're singing the praises of State Farm Insurance, I'll
>add mine. I've been with SF for almost 10 years and pleased with them
>the whole time. I've lived in 4 different cities in that time, and
>there's always been an agent within a few miles of home. My 4 claims
>(1 my fault, 3 not) have been resolved quickly and to my satisfaction.
>I've price-shopped other insurance carriers several times, and State
>Farm has always been among the cheapest.
>
>Speaking of Geico... when I bought a new Jeep Cherokee two months ago,
>they quoted me literally TWICE the price of State Farm. (And I'm a
>low-risk driver with no accidents in the past 5 years and never a ticket!)
I've been with State Farm for 10 years. And up until 3 months ago,
never had an accident to my name.
Interestingly, 2 months before the accident I received a letter from
State Farm stating that I was now categorized as non-cancellable.
Meaning that they promised to never cancel my insurance as long as I
kept paying the bills.
My family has been with SF for around 50 years now, and they've
always done really well when it comes to claims and such.
I'm a satisfied customer, and actually their prices are some of the
lowest out there.
cheyenne
> Harry Crawford King III wrote:
>
> > Oh, yeah. All insurance companies save money with lower speed limits?
> > How about, all insurance companies MAKE MORE money with lower speed
> > limits, because nobody is going to drive that rediculously slow.
Nobody? Maybe not in your age group, but believe me, there are many more
people driving the speed limits than you might imagine.
Jim Carr
Please take note of the Newsgroups line and trim all of the
off-topic newsgroups before posting your comments about
*insurance* to such a diverse list.
Specifically, all of the "makers" newsgroups are off topic (but
feel free to keep your own if you want), and only rec.autos.driving
is clearly on topic -- which is where I set followups if you
don't know how that is done.
russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>
>"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
>of justice is no virtue."
Hence my choice of this article to make my point.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
Jaguar Charles
On 16 Sep 1997 20:02:48 GMT, cra...@eagle.tamu.edu (Craig Kerr) wrote:
>In article <341EEB...@coe.uga.edu>,
>Steve Cramer <cra...@coe.uga.edu> wrote:
>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>have to give the liability policy number to register your car. You can
>>let it lapse later, or probably even make up a number. In South
>>Carolina, the DMV checks to see if the policy is in force. If it isn't,
>>you get one polite letter before the man in the Smokey the Bear hat and
>>shades shows up at your door to take your plates. At least that's how it
>>used to be.
>>
>>Some people won't buy liability if it isn't mandatory. And of course the
>
>Some people won't buy liability if it is mandatory.
>
>And of course, I really want to pay the taxes for all the manpower it takes
>to keep up with insurance policies. And the insurance rates because everyone
>on the board that "controls" them gets a nice cushy job with the insurance
>company after serving a couple of years.
>
>Really, people, this is a bit of an extreme response when (at least in TX)
>you are dumb not to get uninsured motorist anyway.
>
>And of course, I would rather have law enforcement officials do something about
>crime, not nonpayment of protection money to the insurance mafia.
>
>Craig
In VA we have whats called a unisured motorist fee. Not to be confused
with uninsured motorist coverage. if you want to drive in VA without
insurance you can. you pay a yearly $450 fee to the state and they
keep it to divy up to the insurance companies so they can cover
accidents from unisured motorists.
Personally I dont like the idea, for myself, but if you own a $300 car
adn are poor it might be the only option you have if you cant afford
the $1000+ a year in insurance remiums.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Jaguar" Charles - opel...@opel-na.com
One of Richmond,VAs most avid Jacksonville Jaguars Fans
--------------------------------------------------------
Visit The NFL Fans' Weekly (I write for the Jaguars)
http://www.netquarters.net/NFL-Weekly/
--------------------------------------------------------
..
David Henley
Gerald F. Michaels wrote:
>
> Craig Kerr wrote:
> >
> > In article <-16099711...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
> > <bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> > >cramer wrote:
> > >Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those who ignore it.
> >
> > A big ding on the poor schmucks who can't afford insurance in the first place?
> > That will show'em.
> >
> > >Here in California we have had the must have insurance law for a few years now.......
> >
> > And like TX, you pay higher rates, and like TX, people who can't afford insurance still don't have it.
> > >
> > >I resent having to pay for all the folks who drive without.....
> >
> > Craig
> .
> We have the manditory insurance law here in Ohio and so far I have been
> able to afford the insurance.
> What I do remember is that when it became a law to have it, the rates
> doubled over night, then doubled again within a year. Seems that they
> did away with the law of supply and demand, and replaced it with the law
> of demand and supply.
> The law demands it and the insurance companies supply it, at about 4
> times the cost it should be.
>
> just my 2 cents
> Jerry
> .
I don't think it should be an option, but that's the only way to keep
costs down. If you can't afford to insure the car, then you can't
afford to drive it (trucks too).
David Henley
David Henley
If you own a $300 it wont cost that much!
David Henley
cheyenne wrote:
>
> baldycotton wrote in article <3421b8df...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> > It's not only Geico. What we need in this country is a revolution.
> > Here in NJ, the rates are the highest in the land.
> > Two years ago, I got a speeding ticket for 18 miles over the limit.
> > Yes, I was speeding. Guilty as charged. It was about midnight on Route
> > 80, a lonely 6 lane highway. 73 in a 55 zone.
> > I got a ticket for $100.00 and four points. My fault, my ticket,
> > altho 55 is just plain stupid.
> > The points stay for 3 years, plus through the balance of the calendar
> > of the last year. So I got the ticket in February, which means I get 4
> > points for 36 months, plus 10 months thru December. 46 months.
> >
> > My insurance company is charging me a surcharge of $500 per year for
> > those three years plus about $410 for the extra ten months.
> >
> > So my only ticket in the last decade is costing me:
> > $1500 + $410 = $2,010.00 (plus the $100 which I don't mind paying)
> > Nineteen hundred (expletive deleted) dollars surcharge for one speeding
> ticket.
> > And DON'T pardon my (expletive deleted) french! Oh, I suppose I could
> have given
> > the $2k to a lawyer in the hopes that he could get me off...duh.
>
> Perhaps we do need a revolution. But in the meantime, there is an obvious
> solution to the problem: It's simple---DON'T SPEED.
Whatever. If we don't fight the INSURANCE companies, they will always
get their way.
David Henley
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) wrote:
>
> Eye of the Storm wrote:
>
> > But then one should be insured against uninsured motorists anyway.
> >
> > Dnison Penndragon
> > E-mail: dpdr...@REMOVE-THISexecpc.com
> >
> > {To respond, please delete "REMOVE-THIS" from my e-mail address.}
> >
> > Now there's no more oak oppression, for they passed a noble law,
> > And the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe, and saw.
> >
> > - Neil Peart
>
> Yes, but I still lose my deductable and risk having my rates go up.
>
> --
> 89 5.0 LX HB K&N Pro 5.0 Flow Master Mac
> 73 Charger 340 Holley 660 New Process 4spd Chrysler 8.75/w 4.10
> SureGrip
> 65 Thunderbird Town Landau FE390
> 62 Chrysler 300 413 Wedge 8bbl Cross Ram
> 63 Dodge Dart 413 Max Wedge 8bbl short ram
>
> It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited
> commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227.
> I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each
> unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial
> email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
> My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving
> nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
>
> To Reply, remove the NOSPAM and send.
As in my current case, Geico is sueing the person who hit me to get that
deductable back, plus in VA, they cannot raise my rates if it wasn't my
fault.
David Henley
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) wrote:
>
> Craig Kerr wrote:
>
> > When will you people catch on the the fact that no matter how hard you
> > drill
> > people for not having insurance they will still drive without it?
> >
> > If you think insurance is such a wonderful panacea, why don't you get
> > uninsured
> > motorist as well? Anyone who thinks that manadatory liability
> > insurance
> > prevents this sort of thing from happening is deluding themselves.
> > How many
> > people muster enough money to get that card and then don't make
> > another
> > payment until it expires?
> >
> > Mandatory insurance does nothing to prevent this, it does a lot to
> > line the
> > pockets of the insurance companies. There is no way to guaruntee that
> > every
> > car on the road has liability. Get uninsured motorist and quit crying
> > about
> > it.
> >
> > Craig
>
> Umm no. First if you dont have the mandate, EVERYONE would drop it
> that had an old beat up car and/or didn't care. And in Louisiana we
> have road blocks and checks. If you don't have insurance your car gets
> impounded and sold. Even if it's "your friends car" or your "aunt'es
> car"....
>
> --
> 89 5.0 LX HB K&N Pro 5.0 Flow Master Mac
> 73 Charger 340 Holley 660 New Process 4spd Chrysler 8.75/w 4.10
> SureGrip
> 65 Thunderbird Town Landau FE390
> 62 Chrysler 300 413 Wedge 8bbl Cross Ram
> 63 Dodge Dart 413 Max Wedge 8bbl short ram
>
> It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited
> commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227.
> I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each
> unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial
> email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms.
> My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving
> nor is intended to solicit commercial email.
>
> To Reply, remove the NOSPAM and send.
Not that I'd have the problem, but what about out of state uninsured
car's?
David Henley
For those of you who thought wipers were for the rain, that's why Rain-X
was made!
Harry Crawford King III
In article <01bcc300$7155dc80$5e66...@cheyenne.wolfenet.com>,
in the far right hand lane and am passed by nearly half of the people.
And why am I bitching, rather than slowing down? You try doing 20-25 MPH
less than every one and see if you can keep up with traffic, who is where,
etc. and not hit or cut off people when you go to change lanes. I know
anyone else reading this that drives in Atlanta can back me up.
And you have to admit, 55MPH on a straight, divided, Interstate highway
was too darn slow. Montana has the right idea.
How about Europe. Any idea what insurance costs for those who live near
teh Autobahn? I don't know, but I bet they have safer drivers.
Harry
--
Harry Crawford King III
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gtd845a
Internet: gtd...@prism.gatech.edu
cheyenne
thomas merchant
I also am with State Farm. I shopped around (not exhaustively) and
found their prices good. I have never filed a claim, and no (recent)
tickets or accidents. All of my surprises with them have been pleasant
(drops in rates, and a rebate).
A couple of months ago my agent informed me that State Farm is going
into the banking business. If so, this may be a good opportunity for
me to close my checking account at my current bank, which I am not
extremely happy with. Keep an eye open for something to appear in
December or January.
Donald Mac Phee Ii
In article <341F59BD...@mindspring.com>,
MaxWedge (Mr. Mopar) <maxwedg...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Craig Kerr wrote:
>
>> When will you people catch on the the fact that no matter how hard you
>> drill
>> people for not having insurance they will still drive without it?
>>
>> If you think insurance is such a wonderful panacea, why don't you get
>> uninsured
>> motorist as well? Anyone who thinks that manadatory liability
>> insurance
>> prevents this sort of thing from happening is deluding themselves.
>> Mandatory insurance does nothing to prevent this, it does a lot to
>> line the
>> pockets of the insurance companies. There is no way to guaruntee that
>> every
>> car on the road has liability. Get uninsured motorist and quit crying
>> about
>> it.
> Umm no. First if you dont have the mandate, EVERYONE would drop it
>that had an old beat up car and/or didn't care.
No...
Car A+B have no insurance... Damages go to court, either A or B can't pay,
the loss is suffered by both drivers. (This is the basis for the following
myth:)
Car A has no insurance, Car B has liability+uninsured motorist. If A is
at fault, he gets nothing, and B's insurance covers him for medical and
liability. (Not collision, oddly enough.)
B's insurance policy covers that damage to his property (via uninsured)
and medical (via uninsured.)
He pays higher rates because the state has no MANDATORY insurance, but HE
is always covered!!!
Now instead of insurance being a supply side industry (unresponsive,
uncompetitive, and in a seller's market), it's a demand industry
(responsive, competitive, and in a buyer's market)
WHY in THE NAME OF *ALL* that is GOOD and DECENT would you want to place a
supplier in ANY form of a position of power?
These are the same guys that would sell fire insurance and later light the
buildings of those that didn't pay their premiums...
But, SOME moron managed to convince you that IF there was mandatory
insurance, your premiums would go down a few pennies, and that the
insurance companies would STILL be on your side...
Boy, were you lied to.
-Don Mac Phee
(I'm insured becuase I CHOOSE to be... I don't have the right to FORCE
that decision on others.)
Cabhammer
Craig Kerr wrote:
>
> In article <341EEB...@coe.uga.edu>,
> Steve Cramer <cra...@coe.uga.edu> wrote:
> >Matthew T. Russotto wrote:(snip)
>
> And of course, I really want to pay the taxes for all the manpower it takes
> to keep up with insurance policies. And the insurance rates because everyone
> on the board that "controls" them gets a nice cushy job with the insurance
> company after serving a couple of years.
Anything the bureaucracy touches turns bad... State
regulated insurances rates and premiums remove
evrything about a free-market economy from
insurance. Imagine what rates you would pay if they
actually had to compete against each other (like
they do for life insurance)
> Really, people, this is a bit of an extreme response when (at least in TX)
> you are dumb not to get uninsured motorist anyway.
>
I think uninsured motorist is even required in some
states (like NY). I have had it forever. I think a
requirement for our new car loan was that we not
only had collcomp but also uninsured. Its like $15
a year for uninsured. Best $15 you ever spent if
you ever use it.
Oh yeah. There are some politicians out therewho
actually want to reduce the bureaucracy, remember
that come November...
Cab
Craig Kerr
In article <-16099715...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
<bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <5vmp17$b3l$1...@news.tamu.edu>, cra...@eagle.tamu.edu (Craig
>Kerr) wrote:
>
>> In article <-16099711...@newshub.sdsu.edu>,
>> <bf...@sundown.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>> >cramer wrote:
>> >Bingo! Right on! Enforce the laws on the books. With a BIG ding for those
>> >who ignore it.
>>
>> A big ding on the poor schmucks who can't afford insurance in the first place?
>> That will show'em.
>
>"you pay and I won't" please correct me.
>
>As I see it, if you are a poor schmuck, and have nothing, including an
>insurance policy to right the damages that you do, then everyone else that
>you come into contact with, pays for you.
>
>Why is that fair or right? Because you are poor? Is driving a car a
>privilege or a right?
Hey, butthead, I have insurance. I pay more, not because poor schmucks can't
afford insurance, but because whiners like you are afraid someone, somewhere
might be getting away with something.
>I think it is a privilege. Something that you get to do if you can pay
>your way, like the ownership and use of most things. You may disagree I
>suppose.
>
>The reason that our rates are higher in states that are just now beginning
>to address this problem, is because (among other things) the laws are not
>enforced YET and a LOT of folks are not paying at all.
No, the rates are higher because 1) you must have insurance 2) the folks who
"control" the rates are in bed with the insurance companies.
>You haven't even begun to experience the pain of not owning your share of
>the cost, but you will, because most folks who are in the system want a
>level playing field and resent that the poor schmucks and others opt out
>of their responsibilities. Anyone with any assets can't afford not to
>insure and they will eventually make sure that you pay too.
Like I said, I have insurance, I pay my part of the cost, which is higher
because you want a crusade against people without insurance.
>
>My solution to the inequity was strict enforcement to get everyone to pay.
>What's yours? To drive on my dime?
Cheap shot. You missed. Your solution is to reach into my pocket and use
the money for satisfying your sense of vengeance at some people because they
don't have insurance.
>
>While it's true a few might escape (for a while), how many escape getting
>their yearly reg. tags? Years ago it was common out here, but now It's a
>pretty well enforced law. Very few folks are running around with out
>registration these days in California. The penalties are just too great.
>
>Years ago we could get by not paying federal and state income tax on time,
>the penalties were weak. Have you tried being late or not paying at all
>lately? Big time enforcement so most of us pay up.
>
>Getting compliance is not that hard Craig. So that excuse just doesn't
>hold water.
Yes, we can get compliance. What will it cost?
>
>Insurance enforcement could be done. You have it, or when you attract
>"their" attention they get you, "smack you up the side of the head" (so to
>speak). Take your money, car, or your license. If they get you again you
>might get to loose some time.
So, now it isn't just losing the priveledge to drive, it is having your
property confiscated, or being thrown in jail, all so you can rest assured
that no one is getting to drive without spending just as much money as you.
Just what we need: The insurance gestapo.
>
>You will pay for the paper or you will loose big time. And those of us who
>have been paying all along won't shed a tear for you.
No, you are not paying for me. Nor are you paying for people who do not have
insurance. What you will pay for is when people must have insurance. When
people have a choice, the insurance company must keep their rates reasonable
or people will not get it. When whiners like you force everyone to have
insurance, all the insurance companies have to do is put a little cash
in the pockets of those controlling insurance rates.
>
>If the laws were enforced. If you and I had to have proof, and that proof
>is actually checked upon (by computer directly with OUR insurance company
>every day that we are registered to drive in the state) . We will all get
>insurance or ride the buss, the hassle of not paying up is just too great
>after a while.
>
>Weather my rates go down or not, I couldn't care less! As long as everyone
>on the road had to pony up like I do! That's just the way that I am,
>selfish I guess.
Yes, you are selfish, so selfish (and stupid) that you would rather pay four
times as much just as long as everyone else has to pay too.
>
>Enjoy your free ride, it's almost over. Besides if you don't want to
>insure, you can just post a bond and avoid the "problem" (for you) all
>together.
>
>Good luck with that straw dog, I think that your cries of fearing
>government intervention are just a cover for you not wanting to pay
>.............. AT ALL.
>
>
>brian
Yes, whiners like you are doing your thing, and now the politicians ride in to
save the day. Will people like you never learn? You must like the screwing
you get when they do that.
When someone can't afford insurance they are already dealing with something
the rest of us with insurance don't have: That they could lose their vehicle
to an accident at any time. You are selfish and immature. You whine because
someone, somewhere isn't paying for insurance. Did you ever stop to think that
they, then, don't have insurance? You paid for it, you have it. Quit whining.
Craig
el...@central.cis.upenn.edu.nospam
[Ngs trimmed.]
In article <5vop2e$gtq$1...@news.tamu.edu>,
Craig Kerr <cra...@eagle.tamu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>When someone can't afford insurance they are already dealing with something
>the rest of us with insurance don't have: That they could lose their vehicle
>to an accident at any time. You are selfish and immature. You whine because
>someone, somewhere isn't paying for insurance. Did you ever stop to think that
>they, then, don't have insurance? You paid for it, you have it. Quit whining.
Are you aware how insurance works? Most people WITH insurance could lose
their vehicle to an accident at any time. Collision is not mandatory.
What IS mandatory (where insurance is mandatory at all) is *liability* --
the money they would pay to *other people* when they damage them or
their property. You posted a long (and whining, IMO) msg about how
terrible mandatory insurance is but you never addressed the question of
how uninsured drivers would pay for the damage they do to others. IMWTK.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <5vnkk2$q...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos <stri...@primenet.com> wrote:
}References: <01bcc0b2$76f1c8c0$b5203fce@defiant> <5vkq0v$j...@wanda.vf.pond.com> <341EB291...@mindspring.com> <3424d955....@news.execpc.com> <5vmna7$d...@wanda.vf.pond.com>
}Organization: Primenet - Indianapolis POP
}Distribution:
}
}Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
}: As long as people have the attitude that the way to show
}: responsibility is to pay an insurance company to take on that
}: responsibility, the insurance companies are going to have their
}: license to steal.
}
}Paretto just rolled in his grave.
Let him roll. The theory means nothing when observations show that
insurance companies (at least in NJ and Philadelphia) do have and exercise
a license to steal.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
Craig Kerr
In article <34254f08...@news.earthlink.net>,
Jaguar <opel...@earthlink.ne~t> wrote:
>In VA we have whats called a unisured motorist fee. Not to be confused
>with uninsured motorist coverage. if you want to drive in VA without
>insurance you can. you pay a yearly $450 fee to the state and they
>keep it to divy up to the insurance companies so they can cover
>accidents from unisured motorists.
>
>Personally I dont like the idea, for myself, but if you own a $300 car
>adn are poor it might be the only option you have if you cant afford
>the $1000+ a year in insurance remiums.
>
Is this a fee you pay instead of getting insurance? Or is it a fee everyone
pays regardless?
Sounds like the state is being pretty dumb. Where is the state out any money
for people who don't have insurance? Let the insurance companies sell
uninsured motorist coverage. Sounds like your state legislators are pretty
cozy with the insurance industry too.
As long as insurance companies (or any other interest) is in bed with the state
via rules like this, insurance is going to be nearly prohibitively expensive.
They optimum price for something is always going to be a lot higher when the
state mandates that you must have it.
Craig
Craig Kerr
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.970917...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>,
Colin Brodsky <cbro...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>It certainly can... I have a '73 AMC Ambassador - while it's a very nice
>car in great shape, the insurance company won't write any comp/coll on it
>because it's book value is $200. (they never consider condition of the
>car) Yet my insurance rates are $800/yr! That's liability only. I have
>been insured for about 5 years with not a single ticket ever. Of course
>I'm a single under 25 male. Those rates are from both Allstate and State
>Farm (identical) GEICO was $660.
>
>Unfortunately, other drivers feeling the need to buy status symbol cars
>end up inflating costs for everyone on liability. Nobody needs a $50,000
>car - it's a frivolous luxury that ends up costing every driver on the
>road because people will invariably make mistakes and have accidents
>leading to obscene repair costs that we all end up paying for in the
>calculated risk.
>
>-Colin
>
Oh please. Nobody needs a TV. If people didn't watch so much TV they
wouldn't be so ignorant.
For that matter, no one needs a car. The state/city can provide public
transportation. Then we wouldn't have to worry about insurance.
That was sarcasm, for the slow among us.
As soon as you start talking about what someone else needs or should have,
you better be prepared to get slapped hard with the same kind of logic.
Why didn't you say that if men between 16 and 25 wouldn't drive like the
proverbial bats out of hell, their rates would be lower? (Yes, I was that age
and yes, I drove that way. I paid higher insurance rates too.) If expensive
cars caused insurance rates to be high, they would be higher for everyone, not
just the high school kids in corvettes. But that really isn't the point.
The point is that all these insurance schemes concocted by the states and
insurance companies end up great for the insurance companies and the
politicians, the companies get to charge four times as much, and the
politicians get their pockets lined with campaign donations from insurance
companies. The schemes end up as not such a good deal for the rest of us who
have no choice but to take part in them.
Craig
Marc
Jim Tuccillo <j...@radia1.com> said:
>Marc wrote:
>> Jim Tuccillo <j...@radia1.com> said:
>> >Hitting a deer is the equivalent of hitting another car. They are both
>> >considered collision ( this definition may vary by state but I dont
>> >think so ).
>> Not in TX. They can drop you for a collision with a car, but not with an
>> animal.
>Will they increase your rates because you filed a collision claim with
>an animal ?
Depends on the particular insurance company. I don't know what most would
do, but mine wouldn't raise my rates for one accident involving an animal.
Lloyd R. Parker
Harry Crawford King III (gtd...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: >
: > Incidential to stop is what it is usually called. And GA just removed
: >that clause. You can now specifically be pulled for not wearing seat belt.
: Many thanks to our wonderful Lt. Gov. Pierre Howard for that one. He
: cried and moaned about the increase in speed limit, so the other law
: makers had to appease him somehow:-(
:
States that don't have primary seat belts laws lose some of their federal
highway funds. It's as simple as that. Strangely, the feds and GA law
don't require people in a pickup to buckle up (SUVs, vans, cars, are all
required to).