«

"William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Proconsul" <> wrote in message
> news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>> No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>> risk
>> and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>
>> PC
>
> Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their suit
> many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the cars. But
> .......

I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my answer
to you, and I decided to augment it with this:

Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I call
the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me $1000 a
year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of money, why is
it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said above. That My car
puts me in a high risk category, and they have to charge me that much to
recover their losses due to accident liability pay offs. So, I say, OK, your
check is in the mail.
Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for sale.
It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette only
gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost to
add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a total
of $1400 a year for both cars."
"Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500 or
$400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact, you
want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still charging
me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at home.
Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?

William Graham wrote:
> "William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>
>>"Proconsul" <> wrote in message
>>news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>>
>>>No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>>>risk
>>>and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>>
>>>PC
>>
>>Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their suit
>>many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the cars. But
>>.......
>
>
> I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my answer
> to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
>
> Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I call
> the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me $1000 a
> year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of money, why is
> it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said above. That My car
> puts me in a high risk category, and they have to charge me that much to
> recover their losses due to accident liability pay offs. So, I say, OK, your
> check is in the mail.
> Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
> looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
> Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
> here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
> 'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for sale.
> It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette only
> gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
> So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost to
> add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
> cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
> 20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a total
> of $1400 a year for both cars."
> "Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
> commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
> only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500 or
> $400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact, you
> want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still charging
> me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at home.
> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?

Hi...

Let me continue your story, if I may?

So you've now driven your Civic to work, and all is well. Or is it?

What's really happening is that your teen-aged newly licensed
son, or grandson, is demonstrating to a whole car full of other
teenagers just what this 'vette can really do.

Now how much should your insurance really be?

(based, incidentally, on the experience many years ago of a friend...
though not a vette and a honda, it was a perfomance car and a "family"
type car. The son who couldn't resist temptation and peer pressure,
by the way, in every other respect a fine, honest upstanding young
fellow)

Take care.

Ken

"Ken Weitzel" <> wrote in message
news:lgh9f.359547$oW2.42941@pd7tw1no...
>
>
> William Graham wrote:
>> "William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>"Proconsul" <> wrote in message
>>>news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>>>
>>>>No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>>>>risk
>>>>and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>>>
>>>>PC
>>>
>>>Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their
>>>suit many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the
>>>cars. But .......
>>
>>
>> I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my
>> answer to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
>>
>> Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I
>> call the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me
>> $1000 a year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of
>> money, why is it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said
>> above. That My car puts me in a high risk category, and they have to
>> charge me that much to recover their losses due to accident liability pay
>> offs. So, I say, OK, your check is in the mail.
>> Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
>> looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
>> Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
>> here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
>> 'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for
>> sale. It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the
>> 'vette only gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
>> So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost
>> to add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally
>> only cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give
>> you a 20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for
>> a total of $1400 a year for both cars."
>> "Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
>> commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
>> only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500
>> or $400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact,
>> you want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
>> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by
>> charging me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend
>> driving the Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are
>> still charging me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my
>> garage at home.
>> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?
>
> Hi...
>
> Let me continue your story, if I may?
>
> So you've now driven your Civic to work, and all is well. Or is it?
>
> What's really happening is that your teen-aged newly licensed
> son, or grandson, is demonstrating to a whole car full of other
> teenagers just what this 'vette can really do.
>
> Now how much should your insurance really be?
>
> (based, incidentally, on the experience many years ago of a friend...
> though not a vette and a honda, it was a perfomance car and a "family"
> type car. The son who couldn't resist temptation and peer pressure,
> by the way, in every other respect a fine, honest upstanding young
> fellow)
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
>
First off, I stipulated that I was only 21 years old at the beginning, so it
would be quite a miracle for me to have a teenaged son. Secondly, the
insurance companies will charge you extra money if there exists a teenaged
son in your household, just because of the circumstances you mention. Had I
a teenaged son in my household, they would charge me considerably more
money.

> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still
> charging me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at
> home.
> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?



What about the fact that the car is still a risk to them even when you are
not driving it.


Your sister comes home drunk and uses the auto opener on the garage and
smashes into it.
The car catches on fire.
Or than whether you drive it 10% of the time or 100% of the time there
exists a very real danger that the car will be crashed into. Of course the
odds are reduced if you are only driving it 40% of the time, but the fixed
cost associated with repair or replace don't go away.


Especially with a car like a corvette. Have you ever seen the way people
tailgate high performance cars like Ferraris just to get a good look? I bet
you would find a lot more rear ends accidents..



>
>
>

On 10/30/05 8:24 PM, in article V5-dndRrVvIeAfjeRVn-, "William
Graham" wrote:

>
> "William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "Proconsul" <> wrote in message
>> news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>>> No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>>> risk
>>> and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>>
>>> PC
>>
>> Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their suit
>> many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the cars. But
>> .......
>
> I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my answer
> to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
>
> Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I call
> the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me $1000 a
> year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of money, why is
> it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said above. That My car
> puts me in a high risk category, and they have to charge me that much to
> recover their losses due to accident liability pay offs. So, I say, OK, your
> check is in the mail.
> Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
> looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
> Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
> here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
> 'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for sale.
> It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette only
> gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
> So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost to
> add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
> cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
> 20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a total
> of $1400 a year for both cars."
> "Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
> commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
> only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500 or
> $400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact, you
> want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still charging
> me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at home.
> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?

I grow weary of feeding back facts for you to ignore - now you've
transcended stubborn and moved on to silly.....

PC



>
>
>

"William Graham" <> wrote in message
news:V5-dndRrVvIeAfjeRVn-...
>
> "William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "Proconsul" <> wrote in message
>> news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>>> No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>>> risk
>>> and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>>
>>> PC
>>
>> Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their
>> suit many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the
>> cars. But .......
>
> I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my answer
> to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
>
> Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I
> call the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me
> $1000 a year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of
> money, why is it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said
> above. That My car puts me in a high risk category, and they have to
> charge me that much to recover their losses due to accident liability pay
> offs. So, I say, OK, your check is in the mail.
> Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
> looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
> Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
> here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
> 'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for
> sale. It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette
> only gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
> So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost to
> add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
> cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
> 20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a total
> of $1400 a year for both cars."
> "Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
> commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
> only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500
> or $400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact,
> you want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still
> charging me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at
> home.
> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?
>
>
These arguments are getting a bit stupid.

It does not matter what you think, the insurance companies have their own
policy.

If you can not find one which will give you the sort of cover you want, then
you just have to settle for second best.

There is no point in complaining to a shop, if the product you want to buy
has never been made.

An Insurance policy is just a different sort of product, if no company
offers it, then you can't buy it.

In any case, your car argument is stupid. You could leave your expensive
car parked someplace stupid, while you are driving around in your little
car. You return to your expensive car, and smash into it with your cheap
car, or while you are away your expensive one has an electrical short, goes
on fire, explodes and wrecks 2 other cars parked near it. Improbable, you
might think, but I bet any of your insurance companies could show you a real
case very similar.

Roy G

"Steve Franklin" <> wrote in message
news:4365df37$...
>> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by charging
>> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
>> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still
>> charging me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage
>> at home.
>> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?
>
>
>
> What about the fact that the car is still a risk to them even when you are
> not driving it.
>
>
> Your sister comes home drunk and uses the auto opener on the garage and
> smashes into it.
> The car catches on fire.

This is a comprehensive loss, and has nothing to do with liability
insurance. Liability insurance is what covers you when you are driving a
car, and it becomes involved in an accident causing damage to someone else.
Cars parked in your garage, (or anywhere) cannot initiate a liability claim.
It is always possible to come up with some highly unlikely scenerio that
might result in a liability claim. One insurance company's employee told me
that the car might roll out of my garage onto the street, and cause an
accident when I wan not behine the wheel. While remotely possible, (not to
me, because it would have to roll uphill) this is so unlikely that it
couldn't possible justify insuring every parked car in the country for
liability coverage.

> Or than whether you drive it 10% of the time or 100% of the time there
> exists a very real danger that the car will be crashed into.

"Crashed into" doesn't cut it. The car has to be moving in order to generate
a liability claim that is your fault. If someone else crashes into your car
when it is legally parked, the fault is with that other car, and it's
liability coverage will be accessed for the damages........

Of course the
> odds are reduced if you are only driving it 40% of the time, but the fixed
> cost associated with repair or replace don't go away.
>
>
> Especially with a car like a corvette. Have you ever seen the way people
> tailgate high performance cars like Ferraris just to get a good look? I
> bet you would find a lot more rear ends accidents..

Perhaps, but not while it is parked. None of this has anything to do with
insuring parked cars for liability.

"Proconsul" <> wrote in message
news:BF8B2946.9A58%...
>
>
>
> On 10/30/05 8:24 PM, in article V5-dndRrVvIeAfjeRVn-,
> "William
> Graham" wrote:
>
>>
>> "William Graham" <> wrote in message news:...
>>>
>>> "Proconsul" <> wrote in message
>>> news:BF8A4C12.99B3%...
>>>> No rocket science involved, it's a matter of statistical probability of
>>>> risk
>>>> and concomitant costs to the insurance company....
>>>>
>>>> PC
>>>
>>> Yes. This is what the insurance companies used as the basis for their
>>> suit
>>> many years ago, and it is what they use to justify insuring the cars.
>>> But
>>> .......
>>
>> I was watching 60 Minutes a little while ago, and thinking about my
>> answer
>> to you, and I decided to augment it with this:
>>
>> Let's suppose I am 21 years old, and I buy a brand new Corvette, and I
>> call
>> the insurance company. The girl tells me that she has to charge me $1000
>> a
>> year for liability insurance. I say, "Wow! - That's a lot of money, why
>> is
>> it so much?" And she tells me essentially what you said above. That My
>> car
>> puts me in a high risk category, and they have to charge me that much to
>> recover their losses due to accident liability pay offs. So, I say, OK,
>> your
>> check is in the mail.
>> Now, a few months go by, and I am sitting in my office at work, and
>> looking out the window at my 'vette in the parking lot, and I think.
>> Gee.....that thing is sitting there in the sun all day while I am sitting
>> here, I should really drive something else to work, and just drive the
>> 'vette on weekends. Effie, down in accounting has her Honda Civic for
>> sale.
>> It's about 5 years old, and gets 30 miles per gallon, and the 'vette only
>> gets 10. Maybe I should buy it.
>> So, I call the insurance company and ask them how much it would cost
>> to
>> add the Civic to my policy. The girl says, "Well, it would normally only
>> cost you $500 a year, but since it is a second vehicle, we can give you a
>> 20% discount, so it will only add $400 a year to your premium, for a
>> total
>> of $1400 a year for both cars."
>> "Wait a minute," I say, "I put 60% of my total yearly miles on
>> commuting, so I will be driving the Civic 60% of the time, and the 'vette
>> only 40%. That means you should charge me 40% of $1000, plus 60% of $500
>> or
>> $400 plus $300 for a total of $700 a year for both cars, but, in fact,
>> you
>> want to charge me twice that, or $1400 a year!"
>> In fact, the insurance company would still be making money by
>> charging
>> me half of what they actually do charge, but anytime I spend driving the
>> Civic, they are making money hand over fist, because they are still
>> charging
>> me that $1000 for the Corvette while it is parked in my garage at home.
>> Now, do you see why I am so concerned about this?
>
> I grow weary of feeding back facts for you to ignore - now you've
> transcended stubborn and moved on to silly.....
>
> PC

YOU are getting weary? - Give me a break.....You're the stubborn one. How
much logic can I throw at you and still have you refuse to address the
essential issue? What, "facts" have you fed me, that I am, "ignoring"? What
is wrong with my little scenario? It happened many years ago, in almost
exactly the same way. What could possibly justify the insurance company
charging me more than they would if I drove nothing but a new Corvette 100%
of the time?
Please address the issue, and eliminate the BS.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:48:42 -0800, "William Graham"
<> wrote:

>> I grow weary of feeding back facts for you to ignore - now you've
>> transcended stubborn and moved on to silly.....
>>
>> PC
>
>YOU are getting weary? - Give me a break.....You're the stubborn one. How
>much logic can I throw at you and still have you refuse to address the
>essential issue? What, "facts" have you fed me, that I am, "ignoring"? What
>is wrong with my little scenario? It happened many years ago, in almost
>exactly the same way. What could possibly justify the insurance company
>charging me more than they would if I drove nothing but a new Corvette 100%
>of the time?
> Please address the issue, and eliminate the BS.
>
I recommend that you sit in on a small claims court a few days, and
watch as people admit to lying, cheating and stealing in order to
defraud insurance companies.
And then watch as the same insurance companies are required to cover
claims by these frauds.
You wonder why premiums are so high? Learn why.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Insurance companies work on statistics and large populations. A few years
ago my automobile insurance went up because I drove 11, not 10, miles to
work. The fact that I drove past cornfields and farms with absolutely NO
city driving didn't cut it.

"Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 10:48:42 -0800, "William Graham"
> <> wrote:
>
>>> I grow weary of feeding back facts for you to ignore - now you've
>>> transcended stubborn and moved on to silly.....
>>>
>>> PC
>>
>>YOU are getting weary? - Give me a break.....You're the stubborn one. How
>>much logic can I throw at you and still have you refuse to address the
>>essential issue? What, "facts" have you fed me, that I am, "ignoring"?
>>What
>>is wrong with my little scenario? It happened many years ago, in almost
>>exactly the same way. What could possibly justify the insurance company
>>charging me more than they would if I drove nothing but a new Corvette
>>100%
>>of the time?
>> Please address the issue, and eliminate the BS.
>>
> I recommend that you sit in on a small claims court a few days, and
> watch as people admit to lying, cheating and stealing in order to
> defraud insurance companies.
> And then watch as the same insurance companies are required to cover
> claims by these frauds.
> You wonder why premiums are so high? Learn why.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Replace "g" with "a"
> funktionality.blogspot.com