Apparently, insurance companies just are not satisfied with how much
of your money they are getting. Eyeing the fact that for the first time in
history, more sport utility vehicles are sold in the United States than
passenger cars and that they are the fastest-growing segment of the auto
market, these folks are beginning to gleefully count more of your money - as
theirs.
As originally reported in 1997, owners of sport utility
vehicles, pickup trucks and vans are getting hit with higher insurance rates
because of the damage they cause in crashes with smaller vehicles while people
who own smaller cars may get a break on their insurance because they cause less
damage to other vehicles.
What!? Go back and read that again.
Some insurance companies, led by Farmers Insurance Group and
Progressive Corp. have suggested a new way of doing business, moving further
away from the Law of Moses that included the concept of strict
liability. If a man borrowed a neighbor’s chattel and it was hurt or
destroyed while in the borrower’s custody and control, the borrower was
required to make full restitution (Ex. 22:14). Liability here does not require
either negligence or evil intent. Nor is this a matter of res ipsa
loquitur, for even an intervening cause does not exculpate the person held
strictly liable.
What the insurance industry is suggesting is basing liability
insurance on the make and model of the vehicle instead of basing it on the
driver -- using age, sex, driving record and other factors to determine how
likely the person will be involved in an accident. Never mind that the driver
of the larger vehicle is probably safer in that large vehicle.
According to the Highway Loss
Data Institute, the vehicles with the lowest death rates are large and
midsize station wagons/passenger vans, large and midsize luxury cars, and large
utility vehicles. The groups with the highest rates are small and midsize
sports cars, small two- and four-door cars, small pickups, and small utility
vehicles.
However, the government claims because of weaker brakes, lack
of maneuverability and a propensity to roll over in a collision make sport
utility vehicles, minivans and pickups a serious safety threat to their
occupants and others. In accidents, SUVs may pose an even greater hazard to
smaller cars. With their substantial weight and high bumpers, SUVs miss the
crumple zone of the cars they strike; they often smash the passenger
compartments instead.
Folks, these insurance companies just are not
satisfied with how much of your money they are getting. Eyeing the fact that
larger vehicles account for more than half of new vehicle sales in the United
States, and that their popularity is continuing to rise, these folks are
beginning to gleefully count more of your money - as theirs.
They must
figure that since the larger vehicles cost more, those who can afford them
should also pay higher insurance premiums. Besides, who drives those sport
utility vehicles and vans anyway? Hey, it's 'soccer moms' and sportsmen. Surely
if those families can afford all those sporting activities for their kids they
have more disposable income to redistribute to the less fortunate person
driving subcompact cars, such as the Ford Festiva and Dodge Colt.
Or
maybe these collectivists see getting people out of SUV's as somehow bringing
"fairness" in auto accidents. Since the driver of the SUV is less likely to
suffer injury in a crash, and the driver of the smaller car is more likely to
suffer injury, their idea of fairness is to remove the safety advantage of the
SUV owner.
Do not pervert justice or show partiality… Follow justice and justice alone… [Deuteronomy 16:19-20]
What can you do about it? Well, probably nothing besides giving them more of your money. There's no option to 'opt-out' because the insurance companies and attorneys bought off corrupt lawmakers to pass into law a requirement for you to carry liability insurance. State laws require us to buy coverage for vaguely defined noneconomic damages. And that's where big lawsuits, hefty attorney fees and higher auto insurance premiums come in. What a novel idea - require people by law to buy your product (insurance) and then raise the price of it over and over and over again. Is it any wonder these insurance peddlers are so wealthy? Hey! It's Your Money!
Other Auto Insurance Scams
The complaints against Allstate Insurance Company, for example, go
far beyond the confines of this web site. There are entire web sites available
that document the abuses of Allstate. To counter their abuses Allstate hits the
airwaves with advertising campaigns designed to manipulate public opinion in
their favor. A recent campaign diverts the attention from their money grabbing
tactics to make them look like a company that "cares" deeply about their
policyholders. And, it must be working because millions of Americans, like
"mind-numbed robots," send in their checks to Allstate.
In New Jersey
and Illinois there is the territorial rate structure that allows companies to
charge city drivers as much as 35 percent more for auto insurance than they
charge suburban drivers. Rates are not based on factors as driving record,
years of experience and the value of the vehicle. Rather rating factors such as
sex, age, marital status and place of residence are used. Any hint of
discrimination here?
Between 1987 and 1994, auto insurance premiums
rose 44 percent -- or one-and-a-half times the rate of inflation. By 1995, the
average auto insurance premium cost more than $750 a year. These rising costs
affect every driver in America, but they hit lower-income drivers particularly
hard. One study in Arizona showed that lower-income families spent as much as
one-third of their household income on auto insurance, and often chose to forgo
insurance and break the law in order to pay for food and housing.
