# The surest sign that a lot of people are idiots



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Liberty Mutual Insurance commercials.

This one is my (least) favorite: 




Followed, closely, by this one: 




Drives me batty every time I see one. Are people really so stupid that they don't understand the realities of actuarial tables? They must be. "Hi, I'm Liberty Mutual Insurance, and I'm going to set aside the laws of probability to make a deal with you!" Lordy.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I wouldn't get involved with that second one, especially if my name was Brad ( Oh, I totaled him, but I got a replacement). And come to think of it, I don't think I'd lend the first one anything of value. .

It's just typical advertising, like the car deals on TV and in the Sunday papers: to get *THAT* price you have to hit every discount category they offer, active duty military & full time student & first time buyer, etc. Unlikely, but possible, so, no fraud.

You can get Liberty Mutual's moondust, but it won't be cheap, quite the contrary. On a policy you can afford, you'll get an Ethelbert, Jr. instead of a new Brad.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Three boyfriends and two jobs?

Honey, get your s••t together!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Three boyfriends and two jobs?
> 
> Honey, get your s••t together!


Whoever that individual may be, I didn't watch the video, he or she must be having a good time.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> Whoever that individual may be, I didn't watch the video, he or she must be having a good time.
> 
> Gurdon


She. And I think she means that she's gone through 3 boyfriends and 2 jobs during the time she owned her car.

I'd actually consider someone like that to be in a higher risk category from a pure risk assessment standpoint. Strange that an insurance company chose to feature her as a sample customer.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I've been with the same insurance carrier for my life, home, auto, etc. for the past 47 years. When you have a winner, stick with it. LOL, Liberty Mutual is going to have to do a who lot better than those videos to get me to consider changing carriers at this point!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> She. And I think she means that she's gone through 3 boyfriends and 2 jobs during the time she owned her car.
> 
> I'd actually consider someone like that to be in a higher risk category from a pure risk assessment standpoint. Strange that an insurance company chose to feature her as a sample customer.


Interesting. Would the risk assessment change if the actor were male? Also, isn't changing jobs and not being married somewhat characteristic of youngish people? Actually, wouldn't an insurance agency want to attract higher risk customers?

Higher risk=higher rates, which generates higher profits. Whatever category the individual is in, the premiums charged are going to reflect actuarial assessment of assured profit.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> Interesting. Would the risk assessment change if the actor were male? Also, isn't changing jobs and not being married somewhat characteristic of youngish people? Actually, wouldn't an insurance agency want to attract higher risk customers?
> 
> Higher risk=higher rates, which generates higher profits. Whatever category the individual is in, the premiums charged are going to reflect actuarial assessment of assured profit.
> 
> Gurdon


That's an interesting question. I don't know because I'm not an actuary and I don't assess that type of risk.

I think at the presumed age of the woman, perhaps mid 20's, three boyfriends and two jobs suggests instability and/or poor judgement. I'd say the same if it was a male.

As for attracting higher risk individuals, there are insurance companies that specialize in that. I think the idea of risk vs. reward for the insurance company is paramount. A bit less in premiums with the knowledge that payouts may be far less vs. higher premiums and greater assumption of risk and potential claims. I'm sure there's some complex formula designed to assess this.

After all, insurance is the distribution of risk so if a company had too many high risk individuals, wouldn't everyone's rates eventually go up? Those with better records would seek out a lower cost alternative.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Mrs. 32 has done the same thing, and it puzzles me. I've always thought that insurance is insurance is insurance, so I always went with the cheapest policy--and if you shop around, I've found there can be some significant differences. Even if it's $25 cheaper, twenty-five bucks is twenty-five bucks.

In contrast to Liberty Mutual, General Insurance has pretty good ads, I think. They provide all the information a bad driver needs to know--low down payment with instant proof of insurance so you won't get stuck having to actually have a policy for more than two weeks, you can get a quote without revealing your name so they can't look you up in their records, at least immediately, to discover you're a bad credit risk or have other red flags. Here's an example: 






eagle2250 said:


> I've been with the same insurance carrier for my life, home, auto, etc. for the past 47 years. When you have a winner, stick with it. LOL, Liberty Mutual is going to have to do a who lot better than those videos to get me to consider changing carriers at this point!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Not sure how your wife's insurance carrier works, but in my case , given the length of time I've been a 'loyal' customer and an excellent/very limited history of claims over that time, my carrier issues what they call "subscriber savings account distributions" that come close to equaling close to what six months of auto coverage for the family vehicles cost(s) me...and their rates are pretty competitive to begin with!

Your wife sounds like a wise woman.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> I think at the presumed age of the woman, perhaps mid 20's, three boyfriends and two jobs suggests instability and/or poor judgement. I'd say the same if it was a male.


Huh? In my mid 20's two jobs and 3 girlfriends would be considered a good summer......


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

vpkozel said:


> Huh? In my mid 20's two jobs and 3 girlfriends would be considered a good summer......


My point exactly. 
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Correction: 3 jobs and 2 boyfriends in the course of four year. 

I'll leave it to others to judge.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Not sure how your wife's insurance carrier works, but in my case , given the length of time I've been a 'loyal' customer and an excellent/very limited history of claims over that time, my carrier issues what they call "subscriber savings account distributions" that come close to equaling close to what six months of auto coverage for the family vehicles cost(s) me...and their rates are pretty competitive to begin with!
> 
> Your wife sounds like a wise woman.


I live in NC and I consider you lucky Eagle. Others I know have had their insurance cancelled because they have gone too long without a claim. I suppose the insurance companies know a claim is overdue and cash out before having to pay out.

The other thing I learned is not to call and ask a question such as " Am I covered for my neighbor's tree that just hit my house". Sometimes this counts as a "claim".


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Long story, but here goes...

I was working on a weekend in the office--at a different job in a different state--when the security guard came by. "Is that your red pickup truck outside?" Yeah, why? "It's on fire."

And, sure enough, it was. In a big way. A sizeable crowd had gathered. The fire department did what the fire department does, which didn't diminish from the fact that it was a total loss (side note, I had canceled, I kid you not, full coverage the previous day, given that the truck had just gone over 110K and I had never, ever been in any kind of accident, and so went with liability only--that's karma, and screw Brad). It was an honest-to-God case of spontaneous combustion. My employer, bless his heart, put in a claim because the flames scorched the parking shelter. I was living in Arizona at the time and couldn't immediately find a car for the right price that fit my needs, and so I went with my motorcycle, which had full coverage. When I needed a car for dates or what-not, I rented one, and, between my credit card and coverage on my scooter, Enterprise was cool with it.

About a year after my truck went to Brad Heaven, I got another vehicle with four wheels. And got dinged on the premium on the grounds that I had allowed my coverage to lapse. Even though I didn't have a car to insure. Even though I had maintained full coverage on my bike. Even though I had never had a moving violation or anything that could be considered an at-fault claim. That, as much as anything in my entire life, peed me off. Checked with multiple insurance companies, and it was all the same: Your coverage lapsed, and we don't care that you didn't have a vehicle to insure or that you never had a moving violation or that you've had full coverage on your bike for a decade.

I guess that's why those silly Liberty Mutual commercials are so offensive.



ChrisRS said:


> I live in NC and I consider you lucky Eagle. Others I know have had their insurance cancelled because they have gone too long without a claim. I suppose the insurance companies know a claim is overdue and cash out before having to pay out.
> 
> The other thing I learned is not to call and ask a question such as " Am I covered for my neighbor's tree that just hit my house". Sometimes this counts as a "claim".


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^
that's pretty much standard in the industry. Lapses in insurance are a red flag.

It's the same if you have kids of driving age. Even if they don't have a license, or even if they don't drive your car, your premiums go up as if they do.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

True enough. But what do they do if you are in the military and go overseas for a year? Would seem common enough. A lot of people would get rid of their vehicle and, not having a vehicle, would have no need for insurance. Do they get dinged? In my case, no at-fault claims, no accidents ever, no moving violations, full coverage on a motorcycle that never lapsed and, boom, I'm treated as if there's somehow a big risk. I was pretty surprised. I shopped around and got the same answer everywhere. When I finally did get into an accident that was my fault, a relatively minor fender-bender, my rates went up, but not nearly as much as I expected, and the premium was still significantly less than when I acquired a car after a year without one and got insurance again, with a spotless driving record. Again, the motorcycle policy never lapsed.



SG_67 said:


> ^
> that's pretty much standard in the industry. Lapses in insurance are a red flag.
> 
> It's the same if you have kids of driving age. Even if they don't have a license, or even if they don't drive your car, your premiums go up as if they do.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^"What do they do in the military...?"

Many of us choose to insure with USAA a full service financial services company that is (in some part) run by former/retired military and therefore better understand the challenges, insurance and otherwise, experienced by members of the military services. In more than 47 years of coverage, they have yet to disappoint me!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I always thought that insurance companies were as money grubbing and competitive as money grubbing and competitive gets. Plug in the essentials: Driving record, age, marital status, income level, make/model of car driven, claim history, credit score (I think they can still do this, not sure), town/city of residence and it spits out a probability dealy-thing that says, here's the calculated risk, here's what we should charge. Whichever company has the best data/algorithm has the advantage in that they can charge the least and still make money.

Lapses due to military service or major surgery/illness or moved to a place where I don't need a car would seem irrelevant if everything else checks out. Lapses due to financial difficulty or becoming uninsurable due to high rates caused by claims/accidents/moving violations would seem to be already accounted for, although I'd guess that a lapse plus any of the above would be an even bigger ding than simply any of the above because it would indicate you're not very responsible. Just seems really weird that not having insurance for more than six months with everything else fine results in a higher premium than if you have a bona fide claim with money paid out.



eagle2250 said:


> ^^"What do they do in the military...?"
> 
> Many of us choose to insure with USAA a full service financial services company that is (in some part) run by former/retired military and therefore better understand the challenges, insurance and otherwise, experienced by members of the military services. In more than 47 years of coverage, they have yet to disappoint me!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I always thought that insurance companies were as money grubbing and competitive as money grubbing and competitive gets. Plug in the essentials: Driving record, age, marital status, income level, make/model of car driven, claim history, credit score (I think they can still do this, not sure), town/city of residence and it spits out a probability dealy-thing that says, here's the calculated risk, here's what we should charge. Whichever company has the best data/algorithm has the advantage in that they can charge the least and still make money.
> 
> Lapses due to military service or major surgery/illness or moved to a place where I don't need a car would seem irrelevant if everything else checks out. Lapses due to financial difficulty or becoming uninsurable due to high rates caused by claims/accidents/moving violations would seem to be already accounted for, although I'd guess that a lapse plus any of the above would be an even bigger ding than simply any of the above because it would indicate you're not very responsible. Just seems really weird that not having insurance for more than six months with everything else fine results in a higher premium than if you have a bona fide claim with money paid out.


I find it ironic that you started this thread as a criticism of the lack of understanding of how actuarial tables work and then go on to complain based on your own experience or observation in a manner which suggests you have no idea of how actuarial tables work.

What's more, you cite individual reasons to suggest insurance companies take these matters on a case by case basis when the ads you criticized suggest doing the same thing.

You could always ride a bicycle, take public transportation or walk and avoid paying insurance.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Well, you can argue if you'd like. You do seem to like arguments.

The thread took a direction, which happens. Deal with it. I didn't start it with this intent, but whatever.

Notably, you have not said anything that is a factual or logical refutation of anything that I have said. Essentially, you've said "They're insurance companies, deal with it." Which is, of course, the truth on at least one level. But you have not pointed out why anything I have posited is wrong from a logical standpoint. I'm presuming that is because you cannot. If you can, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think it would be good to note that insurance companies are highly regulated by the government because history has shown that it is an industry with a propensity for ripping off consumers.

Again, and just so we're clear: Why would a premium be less for someone after an at-fault claim is filed than for someone with no blemishes on their driving record, a high credit score, no at-fault claims and continuous coverage for a motorcycle who has not had an auto policy for six months? In short, someone who would seem to be an excellent risk and customer in every respect. That's the question. To say "It's a red flag" with nothing else whatsoever doesn't answer the question. I'd be curious to hear if you can think of a reason.



SG_67 said:


> I find it ironic that you started this thread as a criticism of the lack of understanding of how actuarial tables work and then go on to complain based on your own experience or observation in a manner which suggests you have no idea of how actuarial tables work.
> 
> What's more, you cite individual reasons to suggest insurance companies take these matters on a case by case basis when the ads you criticized suggest doing the same thing.
> 
> You could always ride a bicycle, take public transportation or walk and avoid paying insurance.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Well, you can argue if you'd like. You do seem to like arguments.
> 
> The thread took a direction, which happens. Deal with it. I didn't start it with this intent, but whatever.
> 
> ...


I don't have the answer my friend. Ask the insurance company and I'm sure they'll bore you with statistical analysis.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Ah. I thought so. As I said, I tried that. They couldn't come up with a reason that made sense, either.



SG_67 said:


> I don't have the answer my friend. Ask the insurance company and I'm sure they'll bore you with statistical analysis.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Ah. I thought so. As I said, I tried that. They couldn't come up with a reason that made sense, either.


With certain things I've given up. How insurance companies assess risk and come up with their premiums I've given up on. Some insurance companies will only accept safe drivers so the costs are lower but so are their risks. Some charge more but are willing to take on riskier customers.


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Insurance companies know how clueless many female drivers are:


----------

