Insurance Rates - Beware

[Pilot135pd]

Originally Posted by RV8JD

Between the rows listing the "Company" and "Liability Limit" in the tables.

I never saw it there !

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd

I?m hoping Texas laws wouldn?t let them do that here. Thanks to our insurance laws (as per my agent) if you hit a deer your insurance rates can?t go up because it?s a normal occurrence here and not anyone?s fault except the deer?s.

That just means they're building that into the base rate for all insurance policies to begin with.

[Pilot135pd]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

That just means they're building that into the base rate for all insurance policies to begin with.

Yet my insurance here is way lower than for my properties in 2 other states. Go figure.

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd

Yet my insurance here is way lower than for my properties in 2 other states. Go figure.

Well, the insurance companies aren't losing money, so it's a safe bet their actuarial tables have factored in all sorts of items that are specific to the state/locality where the insured item is located. If they're paying out any substantial amount for collisions with wildlife (mostly a problem for automobiles, granted), they're including that in their computations for certain.

They aren't dumb. If there's an outlay, it's covered somewhere by income.

[talon167]

Pretty much any type of insurance claim increases the probability that your rates will go up with any insurer for that type of insurance (house, plane, car). I recall a consumer reports mag article (more than a decade old now) stating that you should never make three lifetime house insurance claims for any amounts because it is extremely likely that they will result in you being dropped from coverage and uninsurable. The article noted it was not the claim amounts that mattered - it was the aggregate number of claims.

It is ironic that you pay for insurance to cover loss, but using it (i.e., claims for losses) will raise your rates or may get you dropped. It's a free market, so nothing against the insurance companies - it is simply a matter of math (unless you want house flood insurance in some areas of the country - in that case no one will insure you, so the government has stepped in and offers flood insurance).

Anyway, the lesson is DO NOT file an insurance claim unless the insurance payment offsets the future rate increases. E.g., if my house is damaged for about a $1,000 above my deductible, it likely makes no long-term economic sense to file a claim.

[Quacked]

Originally Posted by Pilot135pd

Yet my insurance here is way lower than for my properties in 2 other states. Go figure.

Preface: I am a licensed insurance agent in most US states, have owned a large agency for many years and currently work for a very large corporate carrier. I AM the guy who decides on rates and filings for multiple products across multiple states for multiple companies. I am happy to answer any questions anyone might have.


Lots of "Apples and Oranges" comparisons here. The quote by the agent regarding deer being an "forgiven" claim relates only to Automobile policies and is a standard practice with auto policies across most states in the US.

Property policies being cheaper has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Similarly, the Deer strike in the plane causing a raised rate is because of the claim paid not weather or not is was deemed an accident. Every Insurance carrier can show you the data that backs the premise that the odds of future claims increases significantly following any claim. (Regardless of the $ amount!)

This same data gathering by the actuaries is why policies get non renewed after many years following theft claims. Theft on Homeowner policies as it relates to future claims is a significant predictor of future losses.

I always recommend everyone do a comprehensive rate comparison every couple years of ALL of your policies. One carrier may be extremely competitive in one geographic area and have totally horrible rates in another. Similarly, a carrier may be super competitive in one type of policy (Auto) and have crazy high rates with other types. (Homeowner / Boat / Motorcycle) These can all be based on many factors. Some of which are sometimes as simple as the company wanting to be more aggressive and grow a certain market more where they feel they are under represented.

[Pilot135pd]

Originally Posted by Quacked

Preface: I am a licensed insurance agent in most US states, have owned a large agency for many years and currently work for a very large corporate carrier. I AM the guy who decides on rates and filings for multiple products across multiple states for multiple companies. I am happy to answer any questions anyone might have.


Lots of "Apples and Oranges" comparisons here. The quote by the agent regarding deer being an "forgiven" claim relates only to Automobile policies and is a standard practice with auto policies across most states in the US.

Property policies being cheaper has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Similarly, the Deer strike in the plane causing a raised rate is because of the claim paid not weather or not is was deemed an accident. Every Insurance carrier can show you the data that backs the premise that the odds of future claims increases significantly following any claim. (Regardless of the $ amount!)

This same data gathering by the actuaries is why policies get non renewed after many years following theft claims. Theft on Homeowner policies as it relates to future claims is a significant predictor of future losses.

I always recommend everyone do a comprehensive rate comparison every couple years of ALL of your policies. One carrier may be extremely competitive in one geographic area and have totally horrible rates in another. Similarly, a carrier may be super competitive in one type of policy (Auto) and have crazy high rates with other types. (Homeowner / Boat / Motorcycle) These can all be based on many factors. Some of which are sometimes as simple as the company wanting to be more aggressive and grow a certain market more where they feel they are under represented.

So there you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Thanks !

[Av8safe]

?Similarly, the Deer strike in the plane causing a raised rate is because of the claim paid not weather or not is was deemed an accident. Every Insurance carrier can show you the data that backs the premise that the odds of future claims increases significantly following any claim. (Regardless of the $ amount!)?

I welcome the opportunity to see any statistics showing that I will have a greater likelihood of ever having another deer strike claim, let alone another claim based on the fact that this event happened.

Given your expertise in this area, how long do you estimate that I will continue to see this surcharge?

[skylor]

Originally Posted by Av8safe

?Similarly, the Deer strike in the plane causing a raised rate is because of the claim paid not weather or not is was deemed an accident. Every Insurance carrier can show you the data that backs the premise that the odds of future claims increases significantly following any claim. (Regardless of the $ amount!)?

I welcome the opportunity to see any statistics showing that I will have a greater likelihood of ever having another deer strike claim, let alone another claim based on the fact that this event happened.

Given your expertise in this area, how long do you estimate that I will continue to see this surcharge?

Speculating here but I think the premise is that those that have had a deer strike are operating their aircraft at fields that are prone to wildlife incursions and thus may be more likely to have another than someone that has never had a deer strike and operates mostly out of urban airports with little issue of wildlife problems...

And speaking of which, I know of 1 person that has had multiple bird strike incidents...

Skylor

[RV7A Flyer]

Originally Posted by Av8safe

?Similarly, the Deer strike in the plane causing a raised rate is because of the claim paid not weather or not is was deemed an accident. Every Insurance carrier can show you the data that backs the premise that the odds of future claims increases significantly following any claim. (Regardless of the $ amount!)?

I welcome the opportunity to see any statistics showing that I will have a greater likelihood of ever having another deer strike claim, let alone another claim based on the fact that this event happened.

Given your expertise in this area, how long do you estimate that I will continue to see this surcharge?

it's just statistics. Our "big data" researchers at work (6,000+ employees at our site alone) found, for example, that if you had a laptop, cell phone/smartphone or other device lost or stolen, *statistically* you were 50% more likely to have a *second* device lost or stolen. Granted, there were no penalties imposed, it was purely a research task, but...the science behind the analysis is valid.

YOU may not be any more likely to hit another deer, but statistics works in the aggregate, not in single units. I believe the insurance guy here