This just in!
“Starting April 1st, consumers will see how managed competition translates into better rates and better choices for responsible drivers everywhere in Massachusetts,” said Governor Patrick. “Consumers who shop will find that there are enormous opportunities for savings and choice out there. The state has resources and tools available to help consumers navigate the changes so that they can make managed competition work for them.”
With Massachusetts shifting away from an overregulated system of state-set rates, the Division of Insurance unveiled a sample premium web site ( http://www.Mass.Gov/AutoRates ) last month to show consumers the variety of competitive prices and products available in Massachusetts for the first time in 30 years. By answering a few simple questions, consumers can generate a list of sample premiums being offered by each of the state’s 19 insurers. The site instructs consumers to contact an agent or company to obtain an actual rate quote. By clicking on the site’s “find an agent” feature, consumers can easily connect with insurance professionals in their area.
“When consumers use our site, they are struck by the huge variations in prices and discounts being offered by different companies and it really motivates them to get serious about calling their agent and starting to comparison shop,” said Commissioner Burnes. “The savings for good drivers has the potential to be significant so it’s worth it for all consumers to do a little legwork.”
The Division of Insurance estimates that responsible drivers will save at least 10% on their 2008 auto insurance premiums. They may see their rates drop even more if they shop around. For more information on the new system and to learn about additional ways to save under managed competition, consumers should visit http://www.Mass.Gov/DOI .
Re-introducing competition into the auto insurance market is, in theory, an excellent idea IMHO. If it turns out that insurers are using credit reports (or other non-driving-related criteria) to set rates, however, I would change my mind. I do think it’s worth giving this a try.
From the link above:
<
p>Country mouse driving a lot with no accidents: $543 – $639
<
p>City mouse (boston) with same driving charactertistics: $1361 – $1600.
Country mouse that works in the city: $543 – $639.
<
p>City mouse that works in the city: $1361 – $1600.
<
p>Seems a little unfair to base the insurance on where the vehicle is garaged. Unfortunately, the companies are not willing to rate based on where the vehicle travels (nor are consumers willing to be subjected to such tracking).
<
p>I think the state should set parameters on using zip code for setting rates. There is a street in Springfield where, if you live on one side, you’re in Springfield, if you live on the other side, you’re in East Longmeadow. By moving across the street, you save 50% on your insurance (but you pay more mortgage, of course).
<
p>That seems a bit odd to me. Since driving is very tied to the economy, I think the state should create “economic zones” and lessen the impact on rates of moving out of an urban area. For example, people in the suburbs of Worcester would share the impact of the extra losses claimed in Worcester, not as much as Worcester residents, but more than the current “invisible wall” they enjoy now by moving out of Worcester.
<
p>Why? Because economically, suburbs are dependent on the urban area(s) they surround. Insurance costs become another nail in the urban coffin when you can cross an imaginary and save a couple thousand per year in insurance.
Soon I bet every vehicle will have to have a gps link, for traffic flow improvements and law enforcement and also insurance coverage. It does seem like it would go against the freedom aspect of having a car, but the benefits to society would be great, and individuals too. It depends on whether we can get a secure enough system that will protect people’s privacy from those who aren’t authorized to know where someone’s car is, or was.
I seem to remember reading that some states/companies allow customers to “volunteer” for the installation of tracking devices, in exchange for a discount. I think that’s a slippery slope from a civil liberties perspective.
Not a person. And currently a car out on the public streets is subject to surveillance and has a tag on it, though we like to think we can drive anywhere anonymously. But yeah, we’d have to make sure that the data was secure and kept private, and only seen by the inner workings of computer programs, not any people. I just imagine the sorts of traffic improvements that it would enable, and finally being able to know which way will be the fastest way from Davis to Central, right now, under current conditions.
Thanks Governor. It looks like I might have to do a little shopping, and I hate shopping, but this new website is giving me a little motivation.
<
p>Now if we could only get these weaving maroons to learn how to drive.
This makes me really angry. Will I have to abandon my local agency? I like being able to walk in, talk to them, get their advice, etc, without worrying that I’m paying extra for the coverage. How will they survive? Now I’m gonna have to compare rates and decide whether or not to stick with them, and if I leave them, how will I know what the new place’s service will be like?
<
p>My rates had better drop significantly, like at least a hundred bucks, if I’m going to consider this a net plus. If that happens I’ll eat my hat.
Penalizing drivers with poor records is a great step to making the roads safer. Over time competition should reduce costs for Mass residents; as it has done in almost every other industry.
When I lived in CT and RI, I would insure my auto with the same carrier insuring my home and general liability. In a package deal, I could get significantly better auto rates than just auto alone.
<
p>Should our flirtation with partially deregulated auto insurance prove successful and spark further loosening of state control and encourage main line carriers to enter the business, we’ll see even better premium reductions.