Consumer Reports, last month or month before, ran an article about a study showing that auto
insurance companies were charging more for owners in minority neighborhoods than for owners in
'white' neighborhoods, even though the insurance risk was basically the same. Of course most of the
insurance companies either wouldn't respond or said they didn't penalize owners for being a
minority. In other words, they provided bull****.

California is taking some action based on the study and the CR report. Good on 'em. Nice to see
something good for a change. A couple Democrats in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon. I believe
it would be appropriate for some Republicans to do the same.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cons...w_newslette r

or: http://tinyurl.com/y8uysstj

On 9/21/2017 10:40 AM, John H wrote:
Consumer Reports, last month or month before, ran an article about a study showing that auto
insurance companies were charging more for owners in minority neighborhoods than for owners in
'white' neighborhoods, even though the insurance risk was basically the same. Of course most of the
insurance companies either wouldn't respond or said they didn't penalize owners for being a
minority. In other words, they provided bull****.

California is taking some action based on the study and the CR report. Good on 'em. Nice to see
something good for a change. A couple Democrats in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon. I believe
it would be appropriate for some Republicans to do the same.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cons...w_newslette r

or: http://tinyurl.com/y8uysstj



I'm cautiously neutral on the issue... Its a proven fact that some
zip codes have more auto thefts and vandalism than others. In many
cities, these zip codes coincide with low income populations, which
often coincide with minority population concentrations.

I'm not saying there aren't some scummy insurance companies out
there... but if the physical location of your garage is in a high-crime
area, I think its totally appropriate the owner pays more for their
insurance product than somebody in a low-crime area.

Now, if there truly is no different insurance risk (auto related crime
rate is basically the same) the the company has some 'splaining to do.

On 9/23/17 9:40 AM, Ryan P. wrote:
On 9/21/2017 10:40 AM, John H wrote:
Consumer Reports, last month or month before, ran an article about a
study showing that auto
insurance companies were charging more for owners in minority
neighborhoods than for owners in
'white' neighborhoods, even though the insurance risk was basically
the same. Of course most of the
insurance companies either wouldn't respond or said they didn't
penalize owners for being a
minority. In other words, they provided bull****.

California is taking some action based on the study and the CR report.
Good on 'em. Nice to see
something good for a change. A couple Democrats in Congress have
jumped on the bandwagon. I believe
it would be appropriate for some Republicans to do the same.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cons...w_newslette r


or: http://tinyurl.com/y8uysstj



*I'm cautiously neutral on the issue...* Its a proven fact that some
zip codes have more auto thefts and vandalism than others.* In many
cities, these zip codes coincide with low income populations, which
often coincide with minority population concentrations.

*I'm not saying there aren't some scummy insurance companies out
there... but if the physical location of your garage is in a high-crime
area, I think its totally appropriate the owner pays more for their
insurance product than somebody in a low-crime area.

*Now, if there truly is no different insurance risk (auto related crime
rate is basically the same) the the company has some 'splaining to do.




Way back in prehistoric times, when I started working for the Kansas
City Star, I was earning next to nothing, about $100 a week, and had a
really ****ty car. I asked the day city editor for recommendations on a
cheap place to live and he said, "Definitely, Kansas City, North." Why?
Because in those days, a lot of KC's lower ranking mafiosos lived there,
and they wouldn't tolerate street crime. "You could leave your car
unlocked and running," the city editor told me, "and no one would steal
it."

I don't remember what I paid for liability insurance...it wasn't much.
The car I had wasn't worth insuring against theft. I lived in that area
for about a year, and then moved to a "better" neighborhood, but not
that much better.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:40:37 -0500, "Ryan P." wrote:

On 9/21/2017 10:40 AM, John H wrote:
Consumer Reports, last month or month before, ran an article about a study showing that auto
insurance companies were charging more for owners in minority neighborhoods than for owners in
'white' neighborhoods, even though the insurance risk was basically the same. Of course most of the
insurance companies either wouldn't respond or said they didn't penalize owners for being a
minority. In other words, they provided bull****.

California is taking some action based on the study and the CR report. Good on 'em. Nice to see
something good for a change. A couple Democrats in Congress have jumped on the bandwagon. I believe
it would be appropriate for some Republicans to do the same.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cons...w_newslette r

or: http://tinyurl.com/y8uysstj



I'm cautiously neutral on the issue... Its a proven fact that some
zip codes have more auto thefts and vandalism than others. In many
cities, these zip codes coincide with low income populations, which
often coincide with minority population concentrations.

I'm not saying there aren't some scummy insurance companies out
there... but if the physical location of your garage is in a high-crime
area, I think its totally appropriate the owner pays more for their
insurance product than somebody in a low-crime area.

Now, if there truly is no different insurance risk (auto related crime
rate is basically the same) the the company has some 'splaining to do.



ProPublica and Consumer Reports compared the overall insurance risks. Here's a link to the CR
report:

https://www.consumerreports.org/cons...neighborhoods/

The report:

Car Insurance Companies Charge Higher Rates in Some Minority Neighborhoods
First-of-its-kind data analysis finds price differences that can't be explained by risk alone
By Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Lauren Kirchner, and Surya Mattu of ProPublica
Last updated: April 21, 2017

Otis Nash works six days a week at two jobs, as a security guard and a pest control technician, but
still struggles to make the $190.69 monthly Geico car insurance payment for his 2012 Honda Civic LX.

“I’m on the edge of homelessness,” said Nash, a 26-year-old Chicagoan who supports his wife and
7-year-old daughter. But “without a car, I can’t get to work, and then I can’t pay my rent.”

Across town, Ryan Hedges has a similar insurance policy with Geico. Both drivers receive a
good-driver discount from the company.

Yet Hedges, who is a 34-year-old advertising executive, pays only $54.67 a month to insure his 2015
Audi Q5 Quattro sports utility vehicle. Nash pays almost four times as much as Hedges even though
Nash’s run-down neighborhood, East Garfield Park, with its vacant lots and high crime rate, is
actually safer from an auto insurance perspective than Hedges’ fancier Lake View neighborhood near
Wrigley Field.

On average, from 2012 through 2014, Illinois insurers paid out 20 percent less for bodily injury and
property damage claims in Nash’s predominantly minority zip code than in Hedges’ largely white one,
according to data collected by the state’s insurance commission. But Nash pays 51 percent more for
that portion of his coverage than Hedges does.

For decades, auto insurers have been observed to charge higher average premiums to drivers living in
predominantly minority urban neighborhoods than to drivers with similar safety records living in
majority white neighborhoods. Insurers have long defended their pricing by saying that the risk of
accidents is greater in those neighborhoods, even for motorists who have never had one.

But a first-of-its-kind analysis by ProPublica and Consumer Reports, which examined auto insurance
premiums and payouts in California, Illinois, Texas, and Missouri, has found that many of the
disparities in auto insurance prices between minority and white neighborhoods are wider than
differences in risk can explain. In some cases, insurers such as Allstate, Geico, and Liberty Mutual
were charging premiums that were on average 30 percent higher in zip codes where most residents are
minorities than in whiter neighborhoods with similar accident costs. (Read a full description of the
methodology.)

Our findings document what consumer advocates have long suspected: Despite laws in almost every
state banning discriminatory rate setting, some minority neighborhoods pay higher auto insurance
premiums than do white areas with similar payouts on claims. This disparity may amount to a subtler
form of redlining, a term that traditionally refers to denial of services or products to minority
areas. And, since minorities tend to lag behind whites in income, they may be hard-pressed to afford
the higher payments.

Rachel Goodman, staff attorney in the American Civil Liberties Union’s racial justice program, said
ProPublica’s findings are distressingly familiar. “These results fit within a pattern that we see
all too often—racial disparities allegedly result from differences in risk, but that justification
falls apart when we drill down into the data,” she said.

“We already know that zip code matters far too much in our segregated society,” Goodman said. “It is
dispiriting to see that, in addition to limiting economic opportunity, living in the wrong zip code
can mean that you pay more for car insurance regardless of whether you and your neighbors are safe
drivers.”

The Insurance Information Institute, a trade group representing many insurers, contested
ProPublica’s findings. “Insurance companies do not collect any information regarding the race or
ethnicity of the people they sell policies to. They do not discriminate on the basis of race,” said
James Lynch, chief actuary of the institute. (See our response to the insurance industry.)

The impact of the disparity in insurance prices can be devastating, a roadblock to upward mobility
or even getting by. Auto insurance coverage is required by law in almost all states. If a driver
can’t pay for insurance, she can face fines for driving without insurance, have her license
suspended, and eventually end up in jail for driving with a suspended license. Higher prices also
increase the burden on those least able to bear it, forcing low-income consumers to opt for cheaper
fly-by-night providers, or forgo other necessities to pay their car insurance bills.