- Centurion Member
- Posts: 4913
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 4:35 pm
- Location: WI
This is kind of a philsophical debate here but anyway....yeah it's BS I mean where do you draw the line? If you find that studies show that blonds have more accidents do you put a surcharge on people with blond hair? It should be based on your driving record. I could see the vehicle, and where it is being part of it too. Credit? I don't see what that has to do with it really.
I SUSPECT the reason they suddenly told us that studies showed that people with poor credit are more likely to file claims is that when the economy crashed we had more people with bad credit and thus a larger pool of people they could jack the rate up on and make more profits which is what the game is all about for them. At that time (2008) I had poor credit so when they started doing that, they jacked my rate WAY up as a result. However when it improved to mid 700s, they did NOT lower my premium and just kept finding reasons to raise it, funny how that works.
I can't of course prove my theory, I can only point to what happened with me, but as my dad used to say, knowing something and proving it are two different things....personaly I can also say that in the last 11 years I've put on over 250,000 miles alone. I have not had an accident, ticket or claim since 1988, that's 25 years. During much of that time my credit was trashed though it's great now. My driving is exactly the same and the number of claims and tickets stayed the same regardless. Is suspect that any connection they point to isn't based on a direct correlation but just a desire to boost profits. If they did a study that found that people with great credit had more claims, and most people had great credit, they'd use that to justify increasing premiums too.