Cost to insure FiST increasing?

Since you are in Oregon check out Wawanesa Insurance. Only available in CA and OR. Don't be fooled by the funny sounding name. They are legit. Had them forever. Have to say, though, that if you are being quoted more than $3K/year something is amiss. I haven't had to pay that much in insurance since I was in my early 20s, single and had lots of tickets on my record. If that's your situation Wawanesa wont cover you. Anything more than 1 point on your record and they drop you...which is probably how they get rates lower than everyone else.

I will check them out, thanks!

EDIT: Wow! Wawanesa quoted me $85/month! Did you have any claims or have to deal with any accidents? How did that go if so? [MENTION=3582]Joe Schmoe[/MENTION]

A couple people have mentioned credit history, and for those wondering why their rates are so high despite a clean driving record, credit could be the culprit. There's a lot of evidence that people with poor credit (or even less than great credit) are at higher risk for claims and higher overall payouts, and the insurance companies know it. Here is an interesting article from Consumer Reports on just how big of an impact it can have on your rates. In many cases, having bad credit and a clean driving record is more expensive than having good credit and a DWI on your record. Also worth noting that CA, MA, and HI do not allow insurers to factor in credit history.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car-insurance/credit-scores-affect-auto-insurance-rates/index.htm

^^^That "evidence" is just correlative speculation which gives those thieves free reign to over-charge at will, and ripoff at every turn.
These insurers would have to show an actual CAUSALITY (low credit scores actually being the ROOT CAUSE of the violations/accidents/large payouts, etc., NOT just a correlation ) for their claims to have ANY actual validity.

So, someone who does not even DRINK alcohol, but has less than stellar credit, is more at risk for a DWI/DUI violation AND accident, with the resultant CO$TLY, HIGH dollar payout by said companies for pain and suffering/medical tort settlements or court cases, than a 900 credit scorer who is a drunk with a lousy driving record?!?!?

OK, whatever they say. (Do YOU work for one of these insurers?)

My premium has actually decreased over past few years with my FiST....

For my FiST I'm now paying $570/ yr (w/ $1000 deductible) - That's with AAA home and auto insurance with clean driving record...

I'm also probably older than a majority of folks on this forum and drive less than 7500miles / yr (early retired) which I'm sure helps quite a bit with my low yearly premium...

It's hard to compare too much. Insurance also varies by states and coverages, which you didn't mention what yours is. Either way, that's cheap and good, so long as your coverage isn't something too low for what you should have (like a 25/50 or something lol).

agreed...I got that having lived and owned many vehicles in different states across the country I know premiums can vary greatly...

Let's just say that I'm very well covered for collision, comps, and liabilities...I need to be with all my assets including a paid off home I need to protect...

I was just providing another prospective...

LOL, overreact much? I was just trying to help people in the thread understand a potential reason they might have higher insurance rates despite a cheap car, good driving record, no claims, etc. I don't work for an insurance company and I'm not arguing whether it's "fair" or not. I was just curious myself because I want to keep my rates as low as possible.

That said, I do know something about statistics and your claim that they have some obligation to show direct causation (how would they even do that?) doesn't hold much water. They are just trying to explain risk patterns (i.e. variation in relative risk) and assign a monetary value to that. For whatever reason, credit ratings are negatively correlated with risk of claims and claim value. Now you may say that there could be some other explanation for that. Maybe people with bad credit tend to live in urban areas where accidents/thefts are more frequent. But, continuing with this example, the insurance companies also know where people live, so they can use a technique called regression to factor out the variation that's explained by living in an urban area (and any number of other known risk factors like # of prior claims, DWIs, tickets, etc.) and figure out how much of the variation is explained by credit related factors. I can only assume that they have done this and the explanatory power of credit is still so strong when factoring everything else in that they legally can that they have weighted it heavily in their actuarial models. It may be that credit rating is indirectly measuring some fuzzy concept (e.g. responsibility, conscientiousness) that can't be directly measured otherwise but is related to driving habits. Does that mean that everyone with bad credit is a bad driver? Of course not. It is about explaining patterns in risk. Don't take it personally.

Now those are the facts. The "morality" of doing that is another story. For one thing, it clearly has potential to disproportionately impact lower income individuals who are more likely to have bad credit. This is likely the reason that some states have made the practice illegal. Additionally, it can feel wrong to weigh something that is not directly related to driving (credit) more heavily than something that is (getting a ticket), even if one has more explanatory power than the other on a national scale. On the other hand, there is another way to look at fairness, and that is through the lens of personal responsibility/accountability. What would happen if you took credit out of the picture? At the end of the day, the insurance companies still have to spread the same amount of risk across premiums from all of their customers. They wouldn't just reduce rates for people with bad credit; they would increase them for people with good credit. Is it fair that a group of people who have a lower risk of a claim (people with good credit) should have to pay more to subsidize a group of people with higher risk of a claim (people with bad credit)? I'll leave it for you to decide.

The above could just as easily be turned around using actual past DRIVING RECORD risk as the factor; why should those "lower income" 'less fiscally responsible' policyholders have to subsidize wealthy, high credit score policyholders who have a cavalier, no care, "I will do what I want because I am RICH and can get away with it!" attitude, and drive (drunk OR sober) reflecting that attitude, and have a PROVEN track record of "high risk of claim"??

It's not "overreacting" when on most other sites I've been on, nine times out of ten, it turns out that the one's vociferously defending these crook companies, WORK for them in some capacity.

Sadly, just like many other industries in this land, almost all of the politicians (on both/any/all sides of the fence) are "in the pocket" of the insurance industry, and given carte blanche to do as they wish, with minimal interference, regardless of how; unfair, immoral, or even outright illegal (when they do get caught doing the very few things they are not allowed to do).

Just to chime in on something more maddening. When I was 18 I got married. My insurance literally halved itself. 50% savings overall because I got married. I promise I drove no better because of it. Anyhow I digress. We're probably getting off topic.

I've had a number of claims and nearly all have gone smoothly....as smoothly as dealing with an insurance company can be. It's been a very long time since I've had an accident that was even partially my fault, though. I've had a couple break-ins and they handled them pretty well. The only claim that dragged on for a while was a claim where some old man backed into me while I was driving in a parking lot. His fault, but when they attempted to contact the guy for his side of the story he just ignored them so there was some waiting. Wawanesa has nearly always gone above and beyond for me. They have paid out on a stolen Pioneer Nav that I did not declare - they didn't have to but they did. Now they automatically cover up to, if I recall correctly, $2000 in aftermarket equipment without having to declare it and add cost to your premium. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that out on a more recent break-in where they ended up covering a newer Pioneer Nav (see a pattern?). I recommend them to everyone whenever it comes up.

As an aside, you mentioned reading that they are difficult to deal with. ALL insurance companies can be difficult to deal with when you don't follow certain rules for handling the process of a claim. The most important tip is to ask the representative what happens next, when will it happen, and who do I call and when if whatever was supposed to happen (a call back, a payout, etc) doesn't. You note the date and time you contact them and the person's name every time you contact them. Then when they inevitably don't call back or don't do what they were supposed to do by the day they said they would do it you call them, document date/name/time and ask them again when you should call back and who you should call if the next thing doesn't happen when it should. Follow that advice and claims go MUCH smoother. As for repair/payout amounts from insurance appraisers, YOU are your biggest advocate. Don't let an appraiser inspect a car without YOU being present. You should have done a thorough inspection on your own in the comfort of your garage (if possible) before the appraiser comes out and you should make a list of things you find wrong. The Pioneer nav that was stolen from my MX5 did WAY more damage than you would think. When the dipshit broke the glass, the glass fell both outside and inside the car. On the outside it put tiny cuts on the rubber window trim on the top of the door and tiny scratches in the paint. Then when said dipshit sat in the passenger seat to start prying on my dash, he sat on the glass on the seat and that put little superficial cuts in the seat fabric and even on the surface of the seat belt. I found all those little things, made sure to be there with the appraiser and pointed them ALL out. The result was a THOROUGH reimbursement that reflected the damage done to the car. And keep your receipts for any aftermarket equipment. Online purchases tend to throw them off so receipts help.

But remember, you probably wont be dealing with them a whole lot anyways. I mean if you tend to get into a lot of at-fault accidents you aren't going to have them to deal with anymore - they are going to drop you quickly. It's been a long time but IIRC they dropped me once for getting the 2nd point on my driving record.

If you have Erie available in your area they were the best deal for me, even better than USAA. When I bought this car in 2014 I was 25 and insurance was $890 / year on the FiST, comp & collision and all that good stuff. I worked with an agent though that ended up being cheaper than I could get it myself. She cut my motorcycle insurance in half with the same exact coverage and the same insurance company. But that seems like an extreme example.

I also drive very little, like [MENTION=1333]BoostBumps[/MENTION]; 6,500 miles a year for me. Short commute and apparently I don't go anywhere haha