Talk:Vehicle insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does insurance co. have to endorse your auto policy if you had special equipment put on your truck and the same day while it was getting special equipment put on it was hit and you did not have posession of your vehicle to upgrade your auto policy?

Contents 1 SR22 Insurance 2 Name 3 US-Centric? 4 Jan 19 5 Jan 21 6 Pricing issues 7 Page Move 8 Needs a classifications of auto insurance section added 8.1 Liability [often required by govt] 8.2 Collision [often required by lenders] 8.3 Comprehensive [often required by lenders] 8.4 Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance 8.5 Car Towing Insurance 9 Northern Ireland 10 Cost of Insurance in Northern Ireland 11 Started the cleanup 12 Bad taste photo 13 Car Insurance 14 Size of industry 15 External links discussion at WikiProject Spam 16 Added State Department List 17 Wisconsin 18 Please check an old page history

[edit] SR22 Insurance

CarInsurance.com offers quick answers to anyone's auto insurance questions. Here is their answer explaining about an SR22:

• carinsurance.com/kb/content10194.aspx ← January 2007: site is now blacklisted as spam

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.30.173.194 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC); that IP address traces back to carinsurance.com

This article has nothing about the mandatory insurance requirements for DUI and DWI drivers. SR22 Auto Insurance seems to be an important item for people who have been convicted of those crimes to understand and for people who are at risk to be able to understand the consequences.

This page has some good information but it appears to be state specific:

http://www.state.sd.us/dps/dl/FAQs/SR22.asp

and this page lists penalties across various states.

http://www.serenitygroup.com/dui.htm

Additional resourse for SR22 filings:

http://www.sr22-insurance-filing.com/sr22-insurance-filing-info.html

---

Edited the Controversy section to be less biased toward typical uninformed car insurance customer point of view. Maybe the whole section is still unecessary anyway.

[edit] Name

Would motor insurance be a better title for this article? violet/riga (t) 01:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the current article title is appropriate. User:67.173.188.6 UTC: Friday, July, 15, 2005 - 20:28:54

Auto insurance is usually US-English, motor insurance is UK-English, perhaps car insurance would be a more neutral, widely understood term.

The title really grinds on me. I'm not sure I'd agree that motor insurance is British English, but I think we should try and find a title that doesn't sound as foreign to British English speakers as this does. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Car insurance has the problem that it only covers cars. :) "Vehicle Insurance" or "Motor-Vehicle Insurance" are other possible general options (the latter exists as a redirect to this page, as does "motor insurance") Pages that link/redirect here However, they both might have the problem of giving the impression of only covering vehicles, not drivers, third parties, etc MartinRe 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd stick with this title though, whenever you have something that's called different things in different countries, you have to choose one to call the main article, the others being redirects. That said, to me "Vehicle Insurance" sounds generalised and understandable - does it also sound general, yet understandable enough to those who are used of calling it auto insurance? (and those that call it something different in other countries? MartinRe 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Vehicle insurance works for me. violet/riga (t) 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any other comments, so when I get some free time to work out the mechanics, I'll change this over. Hopefully they'll be no objections then! MartinRe 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US-Centric?

Just like the UK section has a little history, can't anyone provide a little US history too? I came here looking for info on about when states made auto insurance mandatory... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.68 (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority of this page reads as rather US-centric to me. I know this is a difficult issue to work with, as trying to make an article on this kind of subject apply everywhere renders it uselessly vague, but I think it could be improved. PeteVerdon 17:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I think most of the current Coverage levels section is only valid for the US. Possible idea would be to move this in its entitity to a US section, and replace the coverage levels to listing the difference between comprahensive (covers you), third party (covers others). I can also add some info for other countries as a comparasion, e.g. Ireland where you have to display your insurance disk as well as tax disk, and South africa, where everyone is automatically covered for third party via a charge on petrol/gas). Can't do this right now, but may get around to this later. MartinRe 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 19

I have done a fair bit of moving around, to try and make the general sections as general as possible, but a lot more work is needed. Not sure where mile based charging is best put. Also it's difficult to figure out how much to put in the general section, and how much to put in the country specific. It's difficult to have both readable without a lot of repetiton. Ideas anyone? MartinRe 23:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section on methods of charging for insurance was formerly called Exposure Bases. This seemed an appropriate general title for the separate sections describing different ways of measuring the exposure of the insured object (not the types of classifications). Under that heading go time-based premiums, cents-per-odometer-mile rates, GPS-based charges, etc. I'd encourage you to restore that heading. Ninorc 03:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I read the section exposure bases as an expansion of the topic of how premiums/cost are calculated. The difference being that the previous section lists the factors on how much it would cost, and this section lists diferent ways it is charged (flat/per mile/etc). Am I way off? At the time I didn't think exposure bases sounds like a charging structure section (I'm not too happy with current title either, but it's the best I could think of), but if I've misunderstood the section, please correct it. As an aside, I did consider moving this section under the US part, but thought it could be made general enough to stand outside (as other countries are looking at GPS charging too) MartinRe 10:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your view and suggest that something along the lines of "Basis of Premium Charges" would be both descriptive and not country-specific. Ninorc 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 21

I'm going to remove the section on US coverage types, as it appears to be a verbatim copy of the link referred to, and no mention is given of permission to use. MartinRe 11:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Other paragraphs I've shortened/removed appeared to me to contain the same information, just phrased in a different way. e.g. "Most states need insurance", is already covered by "most countries need insurance" earlier in the same paragraph, same for "astromincal costs" v "finanial consequences" (the latter being more neutral, imo.). Also merged the two paragraphs on gap, as the explaination seems complete in the first one (but merged the link from the second on into it) MartinRe 11:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing issues

I've rechanged the paragraph again to indicate that gender is sometimes a factor. eg [1] [2]. This is regardless of age, as several companies only insure women drivers, (and one of the links points out that men get cheaper insurance when older. However, I think it might be better to break down the factors into major and minor. Or maybe point out that some are changable and others aren't? MartinRe 16:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track. While the example of the young guy vs. the older man is vivid, it includes both measurable and unmeasurable elements. The primary fact here is that, as you point out, accident rates per year are higher for the youngest and oldest drivers (both sexes) and the reasons for this remain largely speculative and unprovable. Young drivers are uprated accordingly, but older drivers are not - a case of political reasons over-riding actuarial principles. Older drivers, however, average fewer miles driven and at least one company chose to compete for their business with discounted prices.

Lower average miles driven per year also explains the difference between per-year accident rates by sex for young drivers which prompted companies to compete by offering the "young women's discount," as a dad-pleaser. Men average more miles driven than women at all ages and have proportionately more accidents, but no price distinction is customarily made after young men reach the age when they are more likely to be serious customers for insurance products. Marital status distinctions apply for the same reason. In sum, most of the group correlations selectively treated as rating factors are surrogates for real exposure differences measurable by miles driven.

As for territorial rate differentiation, there is an interesting table at http://www.centspermilenow.org/co_table.htm that demonstrates how high annual miles city cars pay far less per mile than low annual miles cars in rural territories with per-car premiums charged on a per-year basis. In any territory, however, insured cars driven less than average miles for their class are counted on to produce cream.

Given the reasons indicated above for cost differences which are relied on by insurers but not measured and priced on in ways that are visible to customers, it seems sensible to avoid non-explanatory or misleading terms like sex, bad drivers, etc. Ninorc 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

According to a colleague who used to work for Norwich Union, the "women drivers are safer" concept is a marketing ploy. The figures that demonstrate how proportionally fewer claims are made by women is largely a consequence of married women driving on their husbands' policies, such that when a claim is made it is automatically associated with the policy holder, not the named driver. Furthermore, a large proportion of insurance claims are associated with theft or vandalism, and have nothing to do with how good or bad a driver one might be. By careful branding, the insurance companies can therefore pull in women drivers on separate policies, thereby making more profit than they would otherwise make my having women driving on their husbands' policy. The "women only" brands of insurance are operated by the same insurance companies that insure male drivers in any case, so the whole thing is purely a brand segmentation exercise.

It is also interesting to note that if an insurance brand offered "we insure male drivers only" they would almost certainly be prosecuted under sexual discrimination laws.

[edit] Page Move

I've renamed the page "Vehicle insurance" as per discussion above ("disucssion" is generous, I know, but one comment agreed, and no one has objected since the topic came up a few weeks ago. I will also be fixing any double redirects created. (about seven).

If, after the move, someone objects, please discuss here rather than just moving straight back. Cheers, Martin MartinRe 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All double redirects now fixed. MartinRe 19:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a classifications of auto insurance section added

Something like:

[edit] Liability [often required by govt]

[edit] Collision [often required by lenders]

[edit] Comprehensive [often required by lenders]

[edit] Uninsured/Underinsured Insurance

[edit] Car Towing Insurance

Joncnunn 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

I've deleted the section on Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland doesn't really warrant an entire section to itself. The main relevant points to northern ireland are included in the UK section. The only other point worth mentioning about northern ireland is the fact that it is more expensive there than in the rest of the uk. I will add this information to the uk section. Whoever wrote the northern ireland section claimed that under 21s there have to pay over £2500, this is in fact true of all of the uk. 81.79.82.16 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no it isn't. Maybe an under 21 trying to comprehensively insurance a brand new mercedes. Most young drivers trying to insure sensible cars would find a quote < £1k. I'm removing the part about it being excessively expensive in the UK, as there is tonnes of competition within the UK. People with a history without accidents can insure their cars for about £150 a year or less. Considering the amount of damage you can do to other people with a car, I don't think that is at all excessive. There are specific facts about northern ireland that may be worth mentioning, as if I remember correctly, there are a very high number of people driving illegally without insurance. Timb0h 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of Insurance in Northern Ireland

Why does it cost so much money to insure a car in Northern Ireland, you ofetn see insurance adverts say not available in northern ireland, why is that Franz-kafka 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Started the cleanup

I started the cleanup process - though once I jumped in, I realized how deep this article is, and how much cleanup is necessary.

Hope the current progress is satisfactory - if not, please let me know what I changed that should not have been changed or other suggestions. ShotgunMosquito 21 July 2006

[edit] Bad taste photo

Do we really need a photo of a mangled car wreck at the top of this page? Somebody probably died in that vehicle - and yet the article has a "humorous" caption about repair costs, which could deeply offend millions of people whose friends or family have been involved in fatal accidents.

I would suggest removing the image.Mtford 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that two people were killed in the crash [3] I think a less severe crash might be more appropriate anyway, as the majority of claims are for small incidents. Timb0h 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it isn't the best photo for the job. I'm sure there must be a more suitable one. I agree with TimbOh - one of minor damage would reflect the minor nature of most claims. Noosentaal (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Car Insurance

Since carinsurance.com needs so many links I added an external link. I do not see where they have any references included from the links. Also we need to use external links instead of references.

Its completely inappropriate commercial spam, so I;ve removed it. Gwernol 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of industry

Where is the link to the article saying how much money flows through the insurance companies each year, either worldwide or in a particular country or region? Jim.henderson 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links discussion at WikiProject Spam

Thanks are in order for the several editors (especially Zzuuzz and Notinasnaid) have been watching the Vehicle insurance article like a hawk and reverting spam as it's added.

See this January 2007 WikiProject Spam discussion of the external links that keep getting added to this article. There's a list of accounts and domains dating back to late 2005 for discussion and investigation. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand that Wikipedia is not simply a "collection of links" however I feel that the link I was attempting to add autoaccidentinsurance.com would provide helpful supplemental information to readers. Please check the site out again and reconsider. Thanks for all the hard work you put in to keep the quality of wikipedia high! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.229.245.195 (talk • contribs).

That is a particularly inappropriate external link. This IP address has been blocked for spamming this link on multiple articles despite multiple warnings. Gwernol 13:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I note also that 71.229.245.195 was asked three times to not add these links and added the links anyway. Note that the hyperlinks included in the previous request go to all the relevant Wikipedia rules. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added State Department List

Just wanted to introduce myself and mention that I have added a link to a list of all U.S. State insurance departments. I was searching for differences in state rules and the referenced list came up and is complete. I rec'd approval from the website to list it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsmall99 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin

Wisconsin now requires auto insurance, as outlined at this site: http://oci.wi.gov/faq/auto.htm#finresp —Preceding unsigned comment added by THD3 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I live in Wisconsin and although insurance is required, the requirement is never enforced (i.e., the DMV doesn't ask you for proof of insurance before registering your car, and if you're pulled over for speeding the police don't ask you either). We have a very high number of uninsured motorists here, which probably is why car insurance is surprisingly expensive in Wisconsin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.141.228.112 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please check an old page history

I just redirected Automobile insurance to this article. There was meaningful page history, so please examine this version and copy into the article here anything that's missing. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)