Not Another Insurance Gimmick!
March 2007
All too often, the property-liability insurance
industry tries to do something new which may make good legal, actuarial, or
financial sense to those of us whose careers revolve around insurance, but which
baffles the general public.
by George
L. Head, Ph.D.*
American Institute
for CPCU
Baffling a public that wants to trust their insurers is not a good long-run
strategy—especially when it appears to spin underwriting profits from smoke
and mirrors at policyholders' expense.
Calling Hurricanes "Floods"
One such attempted innovation was some insurers' recent efforts to deny Gulf
Coast homeowners' claims by asserting that hurricanes cause flood damage (which
most insurance policies exclude), not wind damage (which most policies cover).
This coverage denial sometimes made no sense. Even a federal court levied punitive
damages against a major homeowners insurer for rejecting one homeowner's damage
claim its adjusters should have recognized as valid.
Invoking what many insurance consumers see as an insurance policy language
"gimmick" (calling a hurricane a flood) to summarily dismiss valid wind-damage
claims during a time when thousands of victims believed their coverage would
at least restore their physical dwellings does not build policyholder trust.
This trust is one of the most crucial assets of an industry that is historically
grounded in utmost good faith.
Credit Scores Affect Driver Premiums
Another innovation which much of the insuring public is likely to view as
merely another industry-profit-boosting gimmick is the new system of adjusting
automobile insurance premiums to reflect a driver's personal credit score. The
lower an insured driver's personal credit score, the higher the premium rates
some insurers are charging for physical damage and liability insurance for that
vehicle.
Most drivers can see how the traditional rating factors of (1) the physical
characteristics of the vehicle (its make, model, age, and mechanical features);
(2) the characteristics of the vehicle's regular driver (age, driver training,
accident record, use of the vehicle including daily commuting distance); and
(3) the location where the vehicle is regularly garaged affect the exposure
an automobile insurer undertakes. But a driver's credit score?
Few see the insurer's point of view that: (1) use of credit-based insurance
scoring has legal authority; (2) credit characteristics are predictive of future
claims; and (3) studies show no correlation between income level and credit
rating, and no evidence indicates credit-based scoring is inherently discriminatory.
And for myself—as a career-long educator and supporter of the property-liability
insurance industry who truly believes we almost always do good work—I have a
similar question: Are our same industry leaders who once hoped their personal
lines policyholders would agree that hurricanes bring floods rather than winds
the same leaders who now think that insureds will agree that credit scores should
influence driver premiums? Do insurance executives realize the impression they
make? Do they care what their personal lines policyholders believe?
Virtually all the private passenger automobile insurers who have introduced
the named insured's personal credit score as a rating factor give the same explanation.
Quoting the press releases of almost every one of these insurers verbatim: Insureds with lower personal credit scores are
more likely to file automobile insurance claims. Carefully analyzed,
this precise statement is true. An insured with a lower credit score (one who
is less likely to pay his or her creditors fully and on time) who has a potentially valid automobile insurance
claim is more likely to file that claim against an insurer than is an
insured with a higher credit score. No evidence indicates that drivers with
lower credit scores are more dangerous drivers. All of the available evidence
indicates is that drivers with lower credit scores are more likely to file insurance
claims for the accidents they do suffer.
Most people with relatively low credit scores are more strapped for cash
for any purpose than are people with relatively high credit scores. When involved
in a somewhat minor automobile accident, most insureds with a good credit score
have a real choice: either submit the claim to their insurer (and increase the
likelihood that their future premiums will increase) or absorb the loss without
having any claim reported. In contrast, drivers with lower credit scores, do
not have the cash and therefore not this choice, so hence, yes, it is true that
insureds with lower personal credit scores are more likely to file automobile
insurance claims. This appears to be the only statement that insurers use to
justify using credit scores to rate automobile insurance.
However, this statement does not clearly justify charging higher premiums
to drivers with lower personal credit scores. Insurers are missing their mark;
they are not making a clear case to their policyholders. If insurers have statistical
proof that the propensity to have accidents is directly proportional with lower
credit scores, they should make this very clear to policyholders.
Conclusion
History reveals that when insureds don't trust their insurers, regulators
step in, as was the case in hurricane-ravaged Florida, where an angry public's
reaction resulted in the state taking over the insurance industry. Is this our
way of building public trust? Isn't it time we stop the gimmicks and return
to insurance policy language and rating procedures that strengthen, rather than
strain, policyholders' trust? And, more importantly, isn't it time to communicate
our methods to the public in a way that's easy for every policyholder to understand?
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author’s employer or IRMI. This article does not purport
to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice
is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.