Fwd: Re: The Insurance Thread Continues

[enzeder@ix.netcom.com]

It's not so much what you drive, as what you may hit that causes the higher insurance rates for "boy racer" cars.

It would appear that Z-car drivers (in general) get in more accidents than Audi drivers and if you hit a Merc in any car, it'll cost you (read your 
insurance company) a bunch o' money no matter what you're driving.  Z-cars get in more accidents = Z's pay higher premiums.  Life's a bitch.

For example:  collision coverage doesn't cover your car at all, so why isn't it free?  Answer: it's not damage to your car you're covering, you're 
covering the property of those you may hit.  

A few years back a guy in Va made the papers by pulling out in to the path of a Diablo.  I don't think the cost of replacing the Taurus was the first 
thing on the insurance agents mind.  Irony is a great thing sometimes.  BTW, no-one was hurt.

Arryn.




On 09/24/97 17:52:34 you wrote:
>
>Among many other good things, Al Powell writes (please excuse the
>edits):
>
>>Regarding the recent insurance thread.....
>
>>I am convinced that (and of course, I state the obvious) insurance 
>>companies use actuarial tables adjusted ONLY to maximize their 
>>profits.  (aka: figures don't lie, but liars figure...)
>
>>Case in point:  My 1983 Datsun 280ZXT vs my 1990 Audi 200.
>
>>The Z just MIGHT have a resale value of $4500 . . . 
>
>>The Audi is worth $7195 according to Edmunds, $10025 according to 
>>Kelly (sounds good to me...) so let's say it's worth twice as much at 
>>$9000. 
>
>>Guess which costs a LOT more to insure?  The Z-car, of course!! 
>
>>This makes NO sense.  
>
>I had recent conversation with my State Farm agent on this very subject
>after receiving an insurance bill or three containing the usual upwardly
>creeping premiums despite a ticket-free no-claims record.  Why, I
>asked, should my two year old Z28 cost more to insure now than when
>it was new, even allowing for inflation?  And why should the Ford
>pickup, with higher resale value than the 4KSQ, cost less than the
>Audi, bearing in mind that both have the same coverage limits?
>
>Her explanation, though incomplete, was not entirely illogical.  First,
>consider the various category ratings insurance companies give to cars
>regardless of driver age and record, presumably based on risk history
>with the car (i.e. it costs more to insure a Z28 than a Camaro V6, even
>if the replacement cost is approximately equal). Much of the difference
>between Al's 280ZXT and his Audi 200 probably has to do with the Z
>being, from the insurer's point of view, an inherently dangerous sports
>car while the 200 is a fine upstanding sober sedan (heh, heh).
>
>She went on to insist that vehicle replacement value is not nearly as
>important a factor as the cost of parts to repair accident damage.  Parts
>for the Z28 may cost more now than they did two years ago, ergo,
>collision coverage rates are higher.  This kinda sorta makes sense but
>still leaves many unanswered questions which I did not have time to
>pursue. Can others, perhaps with insurance industry connections,
>enlighten us further?
>
>Pete
>Pete_Kraus@emory.org
>'85 4KSQ
>'89 F250 4x4 diesel
>'95 Z28