Forum

Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 17 Nov 2016, 08:15 AM Agree 0
Regulator considers banning insurers from asking policyholders about their jobs
  • Jim | 17 Nov 2016, 10:38 AM Agree 0
    Premiums should be determined based on where you live and your driving history. Job and personal credit status should not be a consideration in determining premium.
  • Wayne | 17 Nov 2016, 10:52 AM Agree 0
    I agree with what Jim said. After 44 years in the business I also don't see that students with B average are any better risks than ones that don't have a B average.
  • Davenport | 17 Nov 2016, 11:19 AM Agree 0
    Your occupation does matter. Real estate agents, for example, typically spend a great deal of time on the road and their auto would carry the higher business use classification. Would insurance companies have to throw out the business use classification? Beyond that, I am a capitalist pig and feel like insurers should be able to run their business however they see fit with as little regulation as possible. To do otherwise is government overreach. Let the free market decide.
  • Larry Kramer | 17 Nov 2016, 12:29 PM Agree 0
    The point here, as I see it, is not whether using occupational data is a good idea, but rather who enforces this idea or any other idea about underwriting practices. In our world of radical PC and government enforcement everywhere the question may be whether underwriters and businesses in general are losing control of important aspects of remaining competitive and profitable. Everyone wants the government to protect us, but the warning is that too much protection turns out to be dominance. I will return to the pig farm now.
  • Bill in Orlando | 17 Nov 2016, 12:40 PM Agree 0
    I agree with the point of letting insurance companies set rates as they see fit. Heavy regulation is a big part of why the premiums are what they are. Actuaries clearly see a correlation between occupation/education and risk. If they did not, insurance carriers would not care. Until recently, actually(Liberty Mutual's Right Track and Progressive's Snapshot for example) capturing how someone drives was not possible. Actuaries had to make inferences based on a number of other factors. We all know of anecdotal evidence of people that are in a particular category that would be different from the norm. The rare good teenaged driver, for instance. We cannot make inferences based solely on our own individual observations but look at the actual loss experience as a whole for either a particular carrier or the industry. Statistics have been captured for years. What does that data tell us?
  • Paul | 17 Nov 2016, 01:29 PM Agree 0
    "Who we are" is very predictive of loss.
  • Rob | 22 Nov 2016, 01:02 PM Agree 0
    Insurance companies are profit driven. In today's low investment return world, it is even harder for carriers to meet expectations for returns. Accordingly, insurance companies are heavily incentivized to generate underwriting profits. To do so, they look for correlations across data that improve insights and help predict loss frequency and severity better.
    Sometime data analytics can reveal relationships that even 40 years in the business may not make apparent. In the cases of education level or occupation, we may not need analytics to appreciate how students that took school seriously, excelled and continued to a higher level are more likely to be better drivers? Quit this well-meaning, but misguided, over-regulation. Let the carriers proceed and let capitalism work its magic.
Post a reply