not with Farmers. lol. I went through a local agent and they kept raising my rates every 6 months with Zero flexibility. Even when confronted with the much lower progressive quote they couldn't come nearly enough down.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Insurance Tripled after adding Tesla
- Thread starter Mrbattery123
- Start date
not with Farmers. lol. I went through a local agent and they kept raising my rates every 6 months with Zero flexibility. Even when confronted with the much lower progressive quote they couldn't come nearly enough down.
Sounds terrible. I use state farm and they've been great. They've never raised my rates on me. Ever. Ive had the same person since I started driving, 22 years ago.
Edit: to add, I've been told that the best way to get the best deal is to always shop around but whenever I compare my rates to others around me with similar cars/situations, I always come out close or ahead. Plus I always have a person I can call when I need them.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Looks like you've missed most of what I've been explaining in several posts. Read back at your leisure and see if your position changes.
Just to recap, the 'marriage' metric already has a selection effect, and that rules out the very youngest drivers (highest risk) and the oldest drivers who are unmarried by death or design. This is because it's 2020 and most young people don't get married as soon as they are legally allowed to do so like the olden days, especially where pre-marital 'relations' are commonplace.
So, this is statistical sleight-of-hand. To be more blunt, it's a dishonest metric and marriage is not the *CAUSE* of the 'fewer claims', especially where the divorce rate is >50% and Family Court can and does ruin families. If anything, married people should be charged more for the legal bear trap they've created for themselves given the divorce rate, but I'm joking. Kind of. Seriously, I would be against this too. Marital status has no place as a factor in determining AUTO insurance, because it's a lifestyle choice and not always even a choice, yet that widow or widower whose spouse died of cancer now gets to pay 5% more for auto insurance whilst on a fixed income. This of course is nothing resembling fair or reasonable.
What insurance companies should do is simply use their existing data about age and driving experience, along with tickets and accidents on record and geographical area (because L.A. and Boise won't present the same risk, obviously). You know, factors that don't penalize someone for a lifestyle choice, which tramples on a protected class for employment (EEOC), and that class is 'marital status' along with many others listed in kind; religion, gender, national origin, etc.
Imagine if auto insurers were allowed further lifestyle choice discrimination, say, penalizing those with children or those who are religious, offering their special discounts for the child-free atheists out there. I flipped the script against the majority, purposely, so it would be a little more obvious. Would you still support this discrimination IF there was data to show that child-free atheists made significantly fewer claims? If not, why not? Where on this slippery slope is your stopping point? How closely does this correlate to the peculiar perks offered to you?
If you understand why it's wrong to penalize the lifestyle choices of a parent or a church-going theist when it comes to auto insurance, then you understand why it's also wrong to penalize those who have made a lifestyle choice to eschew marriage or who find themselves unmarried for any reason. As you know, not everyone who wants to be married actually find themselves married. People die. People leave. People cheat. Yet, anyone who finds themselves unmarried gets to pay about a 5% penalty with auto insurance, and you support this. I don't think that's reasonable. Maybe that's why Massachusetts and the EU outlawed this practice?
All told, just because it's legal to discriminate in this fashion doesn't make it right or ethical, NOT that we should need to wait for laws to pass to understand ethics. There are always thought leaders who understood our past mistakes of discrimination before it was in vogue. It's easy to roll with the status quo, but it's harder to swim against the tide even when you have it right.
Young people have the most buying years ahead and are some of the most ardent fans of Tesla, and they are the LEAST likely to enter in to the institution of marriage (of all people currently on Earth) and those who do marry will wait even longer than Millennials, Gen X or Boomers. Eventually, someone will fight this all the way to the Supreme court in a landmark case, precedent will be set, and the laws will change. MA is just the first (perhaps not only) state to do it, and this is a shot across the bow.
Until then, I think it behooves us to be ahead of the ethical curve, just like so many of us were with the technological curve of EVs and Tesla/TSLA in particular.
Last edited:
Obviously the discount rate for those who are married is not big enough to reverse this disturbing societal trend. I’m appalled insurance companies aren’t doing their part and trying harder here,
I don’t think I said that marriage causes lower accident risk. I did say that I think the insurance companies claim there is a correlation there and therefore factor that into their risk model.
So, a few things. First, this isn’t about employment, so EEOC has nothing to do with it. Second, using mostly geography is actually quite discriminatory in and of itself. As history has shown, due to actions taken by big banks and government officials, geographical area (down to zip code, or even smaller blocks) is quite correlated by race. By reducing the points on the risk model, you could make it more discriminatory, not less. Third, child free atheist does not correlate with me at all. 0%, trust me.
It’s wrong to discriminate, absolutely. I am also a realist, this is an insurance product and about pooling risk. In a perfect world, we all pay exactly the premium that reflects the actual risk we will pose to the whole pool. Oh wait, that means we all self-insure...and when we are young and have no record, no one helps us by sharing some of the risk. And then the model breaks down because only older people drive, so they are the only ones getting into accidents, and...accidents are now 100% correlated with age. So then the insurance companies kick the old folks out because they’re “risky”...hmm...and then there’s no shared risk. But we have a crystal ball that is perfect...??
The bottom line is that at some point, your risk was subsidized by someone else. Pay it forward. It might not be perfectly in your favor for AUTO insurance, but I bet across all the other insurance products you use now, or will use during your life...medical, dental, vision, homeowners/renters, life insurance...I bet someone else is, or will, subsidize you a *smidge*. For being married. Or being single. Or living in a “non red-lined zip code”... Or whatever.
I understand ethics just fine, thanks. If I had to pick one thing the Supreme Court could decide upon to fight discrimination in the US, marital status for auto insurance would be very far down the list. Sorry...just my perspective.
Apone
Member
Allstate, Amica and State Farm were all higher than my already insane Lexus RC-F insurance. I finally found a good rate with Travelers that was lower than the RCF. As it should be given the price difference in the cars. When I got that one they said it's the cost to replace. When I got the Tesla, they said - it's a new to you car so you are not yet used to driving it....... I think they just come up with new reasons. Married, 45, no claims, excellent credit, stable job and home.... should not be a problem but I had to call around to finally get something reasonable.
FastRedPonyCar
Member
Spacep0d
Active Member
Val, you're stating the obvious as if it's new information or helps your case. It does not. As I've already explained prior, you can show a difference in risk between protected group metrics. That is, metrics for lifestyle choice which you're not legally allowed to discriminate, such as the religious vs. non-religious. Did you miss that example? You seem to be confusing 'legal' (or not yet illegal) for 'ethical' or perhaps even logical.
I'm glad you worked this out, but you've completely missed the point. Marriage is a lifestyle choice and a protected status for the EEOC. Why would government protect this status with respect to equal employment opportunities, arguably far more critical to people, while it's perfectly legal to discriminate on this basis for auto insurance? The answer here is not difficult. Using marital status as a basis for discrimination in auto insurance is clearly wrong (unethical). Insurance companies haven't caught up yet, or I should say, the law hasn't caught up yet to make it illegal to discriminate on this basis.
To be fair to Tesla, the agent I spoke with said they do use marital status as a factor, but I don't recall Tesla asking if I was married (or I'd have mentioned this issue with the agent I spoke with). It could be that it's technically a factor but they're ignoring it. The agent I spoke with denied that there was any government compulsion to force marital-status discrimination. Elon is such a smart guy and quite forward thinking, so I'm surprised Tesla wouldn't omit this factor on their own. Maybe they are in the process of doing that. Might warrant a tweet to Elon, eh?
You need to trust me that you have this wrong, and I think I've made a good case so far. Your case is just that there's some kind of difference in the incidence of claims between the married and unmarried, but you're purposely ignoring the statistical shell game happening here. You've not addressed this, so you must not be able to address it or find it...problematic for your argument. This point is actually devastating for your argument, because the marital status *itself* creates group selection that already excludes the very young and very old. You must have skipped or ignored this point, but it's salient because clearly the real factor here is age and driving experience, NOT whether someone is married.
This is why I brought up the example of other lifestyle choices (having kids or not, being religious or not) to make it more obvious for those who keep doubling down on an unethical basis for discrimination.
Discrimination isn't a bad word per se, but discrimination on unfair metrics which violate one's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is problematic. This is especially true for immutable characteristics, such as one's sex or race, and also lifestyle choices such as one's religion, parental status, religious affiliation, etc. That's what the Bill of Rights if for, and the American Republic has historically sought to (eventually) protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Nobody is asking for perfection, just a cessation of obvious lifestyle choice discrimination (marital status) for...remember...AUTO INSURANCE. Think about how absurd it is to ask about marital status for auto insurance, when marriage itself already filters out the young and old, both higher risk categories. This is more appropriately covered by knowing one's age and driving experience, along with history and the other more relevant metrics related to driving habits, history, and the incidence of claims. Just because there is a difference doesn't mean it's a legal or ethical metric. Tesla Insurance can no longer discriminate (offer penalties or perks for insurance rates) on the basis of sex, which I think is far more relevant than marital status simply because men drive about 60% more than women. I'm not sure if you knew that, but I've mentioned it in another post in this thread.
You're hand-waving, but not a bad attempt.
Sure, you're just insisting that there are bigger fish to fry. The same can ALWAYS be said for any pursuit of equality under the law, be it marriage equality (formerly 'gay marriage') or equal rights for women, or whatever the case may be. The 'bigger fish to fry' argument is a dodge, not a solution. It certainly doesn't begin to address my argument or my objections to the status quo.
Eventually, marital status discrimination will not be allowed when it comes to both auto and health insurance and please remember this conversation when that time comes.
Ultimately, penalizing one's auto insurance policy rate for a lifestyle choice (marital status) is exactly the same as penalizing one's religious affiliation or lack thereof—or penalizing a driver for having kids or not having kids. I am against all of these forms of discrimination with respect to auto insurance, even if I'm a beneficiary in some trivial way. If we flipped the script and married people were a slim minority, then you can bet that this discrimination wouldn't last two weeks let alone linger for years. The problem is that those receiving the perks aren't exactly up in arms about those who are discriminated against. Similarly, when gay people weren't allowed to get married, other people kept right on getting married.
But, when it's YOUR rights being trampled it becomes another story entirely. One should have the right to choose not to marry without facing penalties which have a chilling effect on the right to live one's conscience. It's legal not to be married, so why penalize someone for it?
For a lot of young people, the future is uncertain, and they're delaying marriage if they decide to enter this institution at all. These current marital-status discrimination loopholes with auto insurance rates won't last another generation, mark my words. Massachusetts has already banned it, along with the EU...and that's how these things start. There's always a first, and before you know it we'll be asking ourselves why we ever thought this type of discrimination was okay in the first place.
Last edited:
Previous car was a Hellcat. I go the same rate for Full Coverage on 2 cars, Home owners, Renters , and Umbrella Insurance for San Diego. The insurance on my other car went down by $200 but just the Collison for a M3P went up $200 compare to a Hellcat. I broke even. I don't mind paying a little bit more than other insurances because I have nothing but good experience with USAA.
CyberGus
Not Just a Member
No one is "out to get" the unmarried. Statistically (as a large group) young married people have less accidents than young unmarried people. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. It's math not intentional discrimination. You argue that the reason that married people have lower rates is because they're older. What you might not realize is that driver age is also taken into account even if you are married. Young married people pay more than older married people. Married people get the discount because they tend to more responsible because they have spouses and kids to think about when they consider doing "risky" things, so as a group, they have less accidents. The married are also less likely to be out at night drinking while looking for mates or socializing, etc... The "marriage discount" fades as the driver gets older by the way. Older people also tend to be more responsible. Some of the things I did as a kid I wouldn't think of doing now because I've had time to reflect on the dangers and seen what's happened to other people and because I don't need the "thrill" of driving fast anymore. I now realize a car is just a tool not a source of entertainment.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Why do people keep repeating this logical fallacy? I've explained it time and again in this very thread.
1. I don't deny that there is a difference between married and unmarried people with respect to claims, BUT;
2. Understand that when you factor in 'marriage', you are excluding the highest risk groups, that is, the youngest drivers and very oldest drivers who are unmarried by design or their partners have died. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to assume that this is BECAUSE of marital status. It's because of age as it relates to driving experience (and maturity too, sure). Marital status could be excluded and we'd still have all the relevant age/driving experience data that insurers need, WITHOUT discriminating against equal drivers A and B but for ONE lifestyle choice....the choice to be single.....and that is NOT always a choice. There are lots of people who have no issues with marriage as an institution and yet find themselves single for any number of reasons.
Think about it. It's not MARRIAGE that is the 'cause' of the reduced claims, it's AGE and driving experience relating to age. This is because in the modern epoch, people aren't getting married right out of high school as they might have in the 50s, and people got married even earlier in the very olden days.
This is a shell game, and you don't seem to understand the logical fallacy yet.
3. Marriage is a PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE that is a protected class when it comes to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), so why is it legal as a factor when it comes to auto insurance policy pricing? The answer is that it's wrong here too, even if you don't agree, and even if it's legal. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right (remember Jim Crow laws?). Remember when women couldn't vote? Remember when Prohibition was the law of the land?
Penalizing an individual based on their PERSONAL CHOICE regarding marital status is no different than penalizing them by religious affiliation or their choice to have or not have children. Just think about it honestly for a minute.
4. One could show a statistical difference between claims made by people with or without kids, and people who are religious or non-religious. Would it be legal to discriminate on this basis? NO. You simply don't yet understand that marital status (a lifestyle choice) is NO different than your religious affiliation (if any) and your choice to have kids or not. It's legal to be a child-free atheist, and it's legal to be unmarried. Why do you think it's okay to penalize people for being unmarried with AUTO INSURANCE? Yes, I emphasized that to keep context. Don't just assume it's ethical because it's currently legal or because you enjoy some small benefit. There are lots of discriminatory laws (current or past) which might benefit me in some trivial way but I don't or wouldn't support them because I have a conscience, and we still all have to be able to sleep at night.
I'm not perfect, but right now my lifestyle choice is being penalized, and I've been with my girlfriend longer than most people have been married, 22+ years. No, there's no common law marriage here so let's not even start with the 'you're already married' nonsense. Even if that were the case, we're both still being penalized.
Granted, this is a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but discrimination is still discrimination, and it doesn't feel great when it's a 5% penalty or an serious impingement on one's freedom or freedom of conscience.
Well, there's a selection phenomenon at work. The very status of marriage in this modern era selects out the very youngest and very oldest. Obviously, the median age drivers will have fewer claims than the very youngest or very oldest who are starting to age out of viable driving years.
Of course I know this. But, if an insurer knows your age and your driving experience, why do they need to penalize you for being unmarried when it's LEGAL to be unmarried?
This is why you don't need the marriage metric. Again, this is auto insurance we're talking about. The point here is to assess claims risk by age and driving experience as it relates to age, NOT MARITAL STATUS, which is a private lifestyle choice and should have no bearing on your insurance rates.
Maybe you missed it, but I've mentioned twice in this thread (or more) that Tesla can no longer discriminate on the basis of sex (which many incorrectly call 'gender'). This is FAR more relevant to insurers (given that men drive about 60% more than women on average) than your marital status. California is trying to be progressive, but continually ignores marital status discrimination with respect to auto insurance (for now). Since fewer people are getting married and also getting married later, this will probably change when enough people with the time and energy challenge these unfair practices, if nothing else but for the principle of it.
This is an asinine and insulting argument. Again, the marital status has a natural selection filter, excluding the highest risk groups of the very youngest drivers and the very oldest drivers who have been left single for no fault of their own (partner death), and for a smaller minority they've simply chosen not to marry, a right one should have WITHOUT penalty.
This is a pathetic argument. What about the >50% divorce rate? You should all pay MORE. What about the rapacious nature of family court, and the way lawyers drag out court battles? What about lifetime alimony, and second alimony disguised as 'child support'? Marriage is a legal beartrap with terrible odds. Your argument has no weight here with respect to these wild assumptions about 'responsibility'. Kim K. was married to Kris Humphries for 72 days. Are you saying she should have gotten a discount during this time and an unmarried Elon Musk should have a 5% penalty, all else being equal?
False. Since when do companies stop asking if you're married? You're simply weighing out other factors that start to raise your rates for unrelated reasons. This is not germane to the point.
You've moved the goalposts. First you said married people were more responsible (asinine argument), and now you're saying older people are responsible which is MY argument. An insurer can assess claims risks simply with age and driving experience (among other factors that don't invade our privacy) WITHOUT including marital status, how often you have sex, whether you're vegan or an omnivore, whether you wear shorts or long pants, whether you're religious or not, or whether you've had kids or not. You just don't understand...yet...that marital status SHOULD be a protected class here, as it is with the EEOC. Arguably, a job is far more critical to one's well-being than a car, and Massachusetts has banned marital status discrimination with auto insurance along with the EU. Why then are you still defending it? Is your measly 5% discount worth it?
This argument isn't related to the marriage metric, but the age and driving years metric along with your current ticket/accident status. These are fine. Insurers should factor in age, driving experience, where you live (L.A. vs. Boise have different claims risk), etc., but marital status is redundant AND DISCRIMINATORY. This is why it's a protected class per the EEOC.
As I mentioned, Tesla Insurance no longer discriminates by sex, which is far more relevant to insurers than marital status, but Tesla Insurance is California only and when it comes to other states it might be different. The laws simply haven't caught up yet, but they will.
See if you can catch up before the laws do.
Last edited:
Akikiki
A'-Lo-HA ! y'all
Apone
Member
exactly, arguing it here is accomplishing nothing. It is certainly not going to reduce the rates no matter how many paragraphs or belittling comments are made.
HaroldC
Member
Spacep0d
Active Member
Civil Liberties>Actuaries.
Ethical standards do not actuaries make.
Actuaries don't get to invent their own metrics if they're found to violate one's civil liberties. The law just hasn't caught up yet with auto insurance and marital status discrimination, but it will.
The fact that the EEOC recognizes marital status as a protected class is but a shot across the bow.
Last edited:
Spacep0d
Active Member
Sorry everyone for the derail. This was meant as an honest point of contention about vehicle insurance in general. I didn't anticipate having to repeat myself multiple times as new people kept joining the fray with the same previously rebutted arguments. I mean it's like Groundhog Day over here! I am sure your patience has been tested as has mine.
I don't think I can expound on this further without boring repetition. I encourage people new to the thread to read back to get the full conversation if they're feeling curious and brave.
I don't think I can expound on this further without boring repetition. I encourage people new to the thread to read back to get the full conversation if they're feeling curious and brave.
I just got a 2020 Model 3 standard plus and am insured with Erie. I didn't see any postings about them but it's worth a try (don't know if they are in all states). Our policy is standard coverage and annual premium is $948 for the Tesla and for my wife's 2018 Ford Fusion Hybrid it's $762. We are retired, live in N. VA, and don't commute so they are "pleasure" vehicles. I've used brokers many times and we've found Erie to be the lowest and best for more than 3 decades.
