and that picture made me LOL
Which is irrelevant to the cost of providing auto insurance.wait till the post the profits made on home and other insurances.
Which is irrelevant to the cost of providing auto insurance.
Maybe so, but not irrelevant to the way they treat us. They lose money, that justifies an increase. Using the same approach record profit heard should translate to a decrease in those premiums, but they never have. It's the same problem with gas prices.
Maybe so, but not irrelevant to the way they treat us. They lose money, that justifies an increase. Using the same approach record profit heard should translate to a decrease in those premiums, but they never have. It's the same problem with gas prices.
Decreases do happen, just not much recently due to rapidly increasing claims cost.
FYI, the rate changes approved by FSCO are all available online:
http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/rates/Pages/default.aspx
And according to their financial report they paid out more in claims and operating expenses than they earned in insurance premium income.According to their financial report, they look like they are in good shape. Up almost $400 million over 2009
http://www.statefarm.com/aboutus/_pdf/2010_annual_report.pdf
And according to their financial report they paid out more in claims and operating expenses than they earned in insurance premium income.
The only thing putting them into the black was investment income. Coincidentally, their increase in net income from 2009 to 2010 was due almost entirely due to an increase in investment income.
The raw number ($951 million in the black) doesn't mean all that much.Still very hard to butch about being in the black by nearly a billion dollars regardless of how you get there. I offer no sympathy for their losses.