When your conviction is entered into the system, the date of the conviction is also entered. If the conviction is more than 3 years old at renewal, then it will no longer affect your rate.
|
|
|
Should I keep my mouth shut?
- Thread starter Mukala
- Start date
When your conviction is entered into the system, the date of the conviction is also entered. If the conviction is more than 3 years old at renewal, then it will no longer affect your rate.
The same insurers providing insurance in Ontario also provide insurance in the other provinces. Insurance is expensive in Ontario relative to other provinces because people in Ontario claim a lot more than people in other provices (i.e. poor driving habits, density, entitlement, etc.). I have priced insurance products in Saskatchewan as well, and if my company was allowed to provide basic coverage there, our product would be cheaper than the insurance offered by SGI. I don't think I can name a single program that the Government has ever handled efficiently. Ornge, Gazebos, Public Sector salaries out of whack with reality, etc.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
this sounds kinda like racial/ethnic profiling. i thought that wasnt legal. im not trying to stir up the pot, but thats kinda what it sounds like doesnt it ? lol
I don't see anything in his reply that says companies use models to predict which ones are most likely to have convictions "based on their race or ethnicity" It says "clients" it could be that there are many factors including, sex, age, race, marital status, etc. The courts have ruled that "age discrimination" is acceptable when providing insurance coverage as are other "factors"
That is why they ask how old you are and what sex you are and if your married etc. A person who is 19 year old male, single is going to be paying a higher rate than say a 45 year old married man for premiums.
Now in this instance he is saying that these "models" predict who is more likely to have a conviction and they buy those records from the MTO. So they are not discriminating in any event. If the person has NO convictions then they wasted their money buying the report. If the person does have convictions then their risk level is increased and they should pay more. They also only pull these reports when offering renewal, or writing a new policy. The insurers could just as easily say no one gets a renewal or insurance period, unless they provide the insurer with a driving abstract and have the client pay for the "report"
So I don't see how this could be seen as racial/ethnic profiling. I am sure that is one of the factors built into the algorithms.
That is why they ask how old you are and what sex you are and if your married etc. A person who is 19 year old male, single is going to be paying a higher rate than say a 45 year old married man for premiums.
Now in this instance he is saying that these "models" predict who is more likely to have a conviction and they buy those records from the MTO. So they are not discriminating in any event. If the person has NO convictions then they wasted their money buying the report. If the person does have convictions then their risk level is increased and they should pay more. They also only pull these reports when offering renewal, or writing a new policy. The insurers could just as easily say no one gets a renewal or insurance period, unless they provide the insurer with a driving abstract and have the client pay for the "report"
So I don't see how this could be seen as racial/ethnic profiling. I am sure that is one of the factors built into the algorithms.
I hope thats fake...
That is correct. I never once said that the models use ethnicity when trying to determine how the Motor Vehicle Reports (MVRs) should be ordered for. Typical variables for such a prediction model would include the obvious ones like age, gender, previous claims/convictions history, etc. Insurers are prohibited by the Insurance Act from using ethnicity (or any proxy) in rating.
Some insurers may use models for predicting clients with unreported convictions, some may just take a random sampling (say, 1/3 of the book each year), while others may not order the reports at all and expect that their clients adhere to the policy by reporting such incidents.
Actually, insurers can't do this. We aren't allowed to pass this cost on to the client.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
what i meant is that the insurance companies are profiling their clients.
they target a specific type of client, and search those files first. you said The convictions history may or may not be pulled every year from the the MTO because it's pretty pricey. Companies use models to predict the clients most likely to have a conviction and then purchase their reports.
this implies that insurance companies pay money for info, to jack up certain people on purpose.
so its just like racial profiling., but you arent looking for black/white for blacks or whites, your looking for 24 yr olds, or sportscar owners.... etc... it doesnt matter what the spectrum is, its profiling.
just when i thought i couldnt think any less of the Insurance racket, along comes this gem.
they target a specific type of client, and search those files first. you said The convictions history may or may not be pulled every year from the the MTO because it's pretty pricey. Companies use models to predict the clients most likely to have a conviction and then purchase their reports.
this implies that insurance companies pay money for info, to jack up certain people on purpose.
so its just like racial profiling., but you arent looking for black/white for blacks or whites, your looking for 24 yr olds, or sportscar owners.... etc... it doesnt matter what the spectrum is, its profiling.
just when i thought i couldnt think any less of the Insurance racket, along comes this gem.
Then never go to a casino.. They "profile" you as well to see if your likely to play, and if your more likely to leave a little behind or a lot. Google "profiles" people as does virtually every search engine, and other such internet entity. It isn't a "scam or profiling" someone wrote a simple algorithm which says based on PAST claims and conviction trends this is the "type" of person who is most at risk to get convictions.
If it spits out 5,000 "hits" then the company will pay the MTO for the abstracts to see if those persons have convictions, (Remember it is in your insurance contract that you are SUPPOSED to report convictions to the insurer). The insurer doesn't "Jack up certain people on purpose" they increase the premiums on those who have gotten convictions. It is a statistical probability that 24 year olds will have a higher chance of getting convictions than your average 45 year old soccer mom. It is also likely that a younger person driving a sports car is more likely to get a speeding ticket than that same soccer mom. (now having said that there is a greater number of soccer moms get tickets than 24 year old sports car drivers. Why because there are simply more soccer moms than there are the other group).
I mean we can say it is all a big "conspiracy" but insurers have actuaries for a reason.
If it spits out 5,000 "hits" then the company will pay the MTO for the abstracts to see if those persons have convictions, (Remember it is in your insurance contract that you are SUPPOSED to report convictions to the insurer). The insurer doesn't "Jack up certain people on purpose" they increase the premiums on those who have gotten convictions. It is a statistical probability that 24 year olds will have a higher chance of getting convictions than your average 45 year old soccer mom. It is also likely that a younger person driving a sports car is more likely to get a speeding ticket than that same soccer mom. (now having said that there is a greater number of soccer moms get tickets than 24 year old sports car drivers. Why because there are simply more soccer moms than there are the other group).
I mean we can say it is all a big "conspiracy" but insurers have actuaries for a reason.
Sativa Quemador
Well-known member
you missed my point. not worth explaining it. you still wont get it.
not your fault or mine. some people get it.
not your fault or mine. some people get it.
soto
Well-known member
We all profile others. You adjust your actions based on predictions you make about a person you don't know. It's smart and keeps you safer.
Yes, you must disclose all motor-vehicle accidents. Depending on the company, they may or may not consider Motorcycle claims when rating your Auto (or vice versa).
It's targeting fraud and it's completely within our legal and ethical rights to do so. This is nothing controversial. Clients are bound by contract to disclose claims and convictions, and ordering MVRs wouldn't be required if everyone was honest. The policy used to order MVRs has absolutely no impact on people who are abiding by the terms of their contract.
The prediction models don't use any information that isn't already being used in rating (which excludes race). The variables used in rating are regulated by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
|
|
|
|
|