Insurance?

[BGGB]

I'm finishing up my restoration and am preparing for all the paperwork and whatnot. i'm looking for insurance that is reasonable and fairly cheap (since i'm a student). i tried online quotes from several compaines but most don't go back to 1965, an the ones that do quoted at over twice as much as i expected. i'm i looking for to much for too little or is there a insurace company out there that will cater to older vehicals that daily drivers.

[Jim-ME]

I've had good luck with insurance thru AAA. I don't have collision or glass breakage and the premium on my 64 Rover is $178 every 6 months but I'm old too. My son's 2000 Jeep with all coverage is $345 for the same time period.
Jim

[Eric W S]

I'm finishing up my restoration and am preparing for all the paperwork and whatnot. i'm looking for insurance that is reasonable and fairly cheap (since i'm a student). i tried online quotes from several compaines but most don't go back to 1965, an the ones that do quoted at over twice as much as i expected. i'm i looking for to much for too little or is there a insurace company out there that will cater to older vehicals that daily drivers.

It's not the car that makes it expensive. It's the driver. Your a young student. Your the highest risk out there. Just because your driving a 65 won't make it cheaper.

Have your father insure it and list you as a driver. Pay him the premium. Then you'll get a deal.

And call an agent. State Farm had the rate book for a 66 and was able to bind my policy in under 4 hours.

EwS

[jp-]

It's not the car that makes it expensive. It's the driver. Your a young student. Your the highest risk out there. Just because your driving a 65 won't make it cheaper.

Have your father insure it and list you as a driver. Pay him the premium. Then you'll get a deal.

And call an agent. State Farm had the rate book for a 66 and was able to bind my policy in under 4 hours.

EwS

It seems like legal discrimination. Insurance rates are extremely high for the young. I understand why, but in my case I was a very good young driver. I fixed up cars at that time and only had most of the cars that I owned for 6 months or less. I never had any of them insured at that time. I made it through the most expensive years of insurance discrimination, and probably saved $30,000!

I drive based on two premises.

1. That the other guy doesn't want to crash his car either.
2. If you see a car with dents or crash damage, give him a wide berth. He doesn't operate on the 1st premise.

[greenmeanie]

I drive based on two premises.

1. That the other guy doesn't want to crash his car either.
2. If you see a car with dents or crash damage, give him a wide berth. He doesn't operate on the 1st premise.

That's why I love commuting in my 88. She has accrued enough scars over the years to make everyone think twice. The zip ties holding the rear driver's side corner together are a nice touch I think.

Once I have got my 109 built this one is going inside for a rebuild to make her pretty again.

Cheers
Gregor

[Eric W S]

It seems like legal discrimination. Insurance rates are extremely high for the young. I understand why, but in my case I was a very good young driver. I fixed up cars at that time and only had most of the cars that I owned for 6 months or less. I never had any of them insured at that time. I made it though the most expensive years of insurance discrimination, and probably saved $30,000!

I drive based on two premises.

1. That the other guy doesn't want to crash his car either.
2. If you see a car with dents or crash damage, give him a wide berth. He doesn't operate on the 1st premise.

Not discrimination. Statistical fact. Young people crash cars, speed, drive drunk. Actuaries crunch these numbers based on losses and assign risk. If you are going to ask someone to buy that potential risk, they will naturally charge you more. Discrimination involves race age or *** legally.

Health care is moving in the same direction. Eventually, out of shape, smoking and drinking people will pay more.

[pyounts]

My insurance is classic car insurance with Hagerty. I don't know if they ask about it being a daily driver though as mine is not. I do know I have to keep it locked up when not in use.

[SafeAirOne]

It has been my experience that anyone will write a liability/medical policy for a Series Rover; Finding someone to write a comprehensive policy might be a different story. I've only had liability insurance since I've owned mine. I figure that if I wreck my own truck, then I'm gonna have to just eat it. It's not like I'm driving around in one of these $35,000 restoration jobs anyhow. I total my 109 and I'm out the $7500 (and declining) market value, and I drive with this in mind.

[Leslie]

I'm also w/ State Farm, no problem w/ it at all.


Whe I was 16, I used to drive an old primer black mid-70's TransAm.... when meeting other vehicles on the road, they would almost run out of the road on the other side to give mine a wide berth.... Then, years later, when I had a beater FSJ, again, people would almost turn and take another route to avoid driving near someone in a battle-tank, lol.....

[Eric W S]

It has been my experience that anyone will write a liability/medical policy for a Series Rover; Finding someone to write a comprehensive policy might be a different story. I've only had liability insurance since I've owned mine. I figure that if I wreck my own truck, then I'm gonna have to just eat it. It's not like I'm driving around in one of these $35,000 restoration jobs anyhow. I total my 109 and I'm out the $7500 (and declining) market value, and I drive with this in mind.

State Farm bound my policy for the 66 in under 2 hours... Full coverage including theft and stated value...

EwS

[jp-]

Not discrimination. Statistical fact. Young people crash cars, speed, drive drunk. Actuaries crunch these numbers based on losses and assign risk. If you are going to ask someone to buy that potential risk, they will naturally charge you more. Discrimination involves race age or *** legally.

Health care is moving in the same direction. Eventually, out of shape, smoking and drinking people will pay more.

It still feels like discrimination. And not all statistics are facts. I was not part of the dangerous group you mention and neither were two of my brothers. We all made it without wrecks.

Funny thing is that the out of shape smokers will never have to pay more because they can afford to sue and claim that they are being discriminated against. Younger people as a whole are a lot more financially challenged and cannot afford to defend their position on things like unfair car insurance rates. Furthermore, by the time they have the wealth to fight such things, they are out of their high paying years and don't care anymore.

All I'm saying is that I wish things like car insurance were done on a case by case basis rather than on statistics. For instance: The younger driver should be offered a very reasonable rate when they start out, that the parent must also sign. If they start to drive dangerously and their record begins to reflect such neglect, then and only then raise the rates.

If I have no record of being a good or bad driver, why should I be treated like the latter?

[Eric W S]

It still feels like discrimination. And not all statistics are facts. I was not part of the dangerous group you mention and neither were two of my brothers. We all made it without wrecks.

Funny thing is that the out of shape smokers will never have to pay more because they can afford to sue and claim that they are being discriminated against. Younger people as a whole are a lot more financially challenged and cannot afford to defend their position on things like unfair car insurance rates. Furthermore, by the time they have the wealth to fight such things, they are out of their high paying years and don't care anymore.

All I'm saying is that I wish things like car insurance were done on a case by case basis rather than on statistics. For instance: The younger driver should be offered a very reasonable rate when they start out, that the parent must also sign. If they start to drive dangerously and their record begins to reflect such neglect, then and only then raise the rates.

If I have no record of being a good or bad driver, why should I be treated like the latter?

Actually, your completely wrong about health care and smokers. Our plan at the office requires you to declare if you smoke. If you do you pay more. If they find out that you smoke they can drop you. Our coverage will not pay one dime for any smoking related expenses. From blood tests to cancer. Previous employer's plan was similar. I am not in Accident and Health so I have no idea of any pending court cases.

Insurance is a business. It is neither fair nor unfair. Insurance carriers accept you as a risk and charge a rate accordingly (rates are subject to insurance regulation in every state of the union).

You couldn't afford insurance if it were done on an individual basis and the carriers would never be able to provide that service due to logistics. You would need an army of underwriters.

Enough of the hijack.

OP: shop the policy. You'll find a carrier.

EwS

[SeaMiler]

I'm in the process of getting a stated value policy and it's a pain - trying to get at least a $20k stated value because it would cost me over that to replace it if stolen/nearly wrecked - for a daily driver it hikes the premium way up...

[scott]

i us usaa. got the tow coverage and the money i save on tow trucks has almost covers the premiums. dailey driver/tower

[jp-]

Actually, your completely wrong about health care and smokers. Our plan at the office requires you to declare if you smoke. If you do you pay more. If they find out that you smoke they can drop you. Our coverage will not pay one dime for any smoking related expenses. From blood tests to cancer. Previous employer's plan was similar. I am not in Accident and Health so I have no idea of any pending court cases.

Insurance is a business. It is neither fair nor unfair. Insurance carriers accept you as a risk and charge a rate accordingly (rates are subject to insurance regulation in every state of the union).

You couldn't afford insurance if it were done on an individual basis and the carriers would never be able to provide that service due to logistics. You would need an army of underwriters.

Enough of the hijack.

OP: shop the policy. You'll find a carrier.

EwS

You're probably right on the smoking, as it is a choice and all that. I still think the overweight people will try to make a stand based on genetics or something else (i.e. 'they were born with it'). Our company has no such smoking policies. However, smokers are given a monetary incentive to quit. This hurts me though, because I never did smoke, yet I get no such bonus check.

Insurance is a business, but I think it could be done much differently than it is. There is room for another insurance carrier that could offer some radical new policies, such as the 2 and 5 year plan. If you drive with a clean record for 2 years, you can opt to have a certain percentage of your cash back, or opt for lower premiums, or you can then opt to go on the 5 year plan (with increased bonuses)...

Now here's another one for ya: The teeen/parent driver program. If another insurance carrier offers insurance to your excellent driving teeen for $800 every six months. We would offer it to him for half that rate, with the understanding that the parent will have to pay back all of the money saved if their teeen gets in an accident during the probationary period.

(Note: Teeen is blocked for some reason when spelled correctly...)

[Eric W S]

You're probably right on the smoking, as it is a choice and all that. I still think the overweight people will try to make a stand based on genetics or something else (i.e. 'they were born with it'). Our company has no such smoking policies. However, smokers are given a monetary incentive to quit. This hurts me though, because I never did smoke, yet I get no such bonus check.

Insurance is a business, but I think it could be done much differently than it is. There is room for another insurance carrier that could offer some radical new policies, such as the 2 and 5 year plan. If you drive with a clean record for 2 years, you can opt to have a certain percentage of your cash back, or opt for lower premiums, or you can then opt to go on the 5 year plan (with increased bonuses)...

Now here's another one for ya: The teeen/parent driver program. If another insurance carrier offers insurance to your excellent driving teeen for $800 a month. We would offer it to him for half that rate, with the understanding that the parent will have to pay back all of the money saved if their teeen gets in an accident during the probationary period.

(Note: Teeen is blocked for some reason when spelled correctly...)

It's not the carriers. They are subject to each and every State's Department of Insurance (all 50 of them). All consumer retail auto is heavily regulated with legislation. I think it is illegal to offer a policy for more than one year. The premium you pay is very heavily influenced by the state in which you live. They approve the rate structure. They tell the carriers how much they must keep invested for losses. So on and so forth. All the way down to broker licensing. I also think there is a law that precludes carriers from asking for additional premiums in the event of a loss. That is why they charge high rates over term. The policy is basically a simple contract stating if you pay 500 a month they will cover losses up to the policy limit less deductible.

The legislation in place is meant to help the consumer. It is generally a good thing.

EwS

[SafeAirOne]

i us usaa. got the tow coverage and the money i save on tow trucks has almost covers the premiums. dailey driver/tower

I use my wife and her Nissan Pathfinder. Saved a ton of money on towing. Twice she's rescued the rover (broken fuel injector pipe and corroded electric lead) and twice the Nissan Sentra. Just this morning she towed me (and the Sentra) home.

BTW, Welcome home, Scott. I see they're easing you back into civilization, starting with the very remote 29 Palms...Such a lovely place...

[scott]

I use my wife ...

my wife rips me a new one every time i call for a tow. once, while test driving after refitting a clutch master cylinder that due to mal adjustment overpressurized and blew out the flex line leaving me stuck, all i heard was "why couldn't you have stayed in the neighborhood, why did you have to drive so far to let it break down?" (5 miles from the house at 11pm)

it's great to be back, beer, golf and soon my series!

[LaneRover]

once, while test driving after refitting a clutch master cylinder that due to mal adjustment overpressurized and blew out the flex line leaving me stuck

Why not just drive home without using the clutch?

[scott]

Why not just drive home without using the clutch?

that would have been easier than calling her. i had since practice that technique. but with everything new except for he rubber pad on the clutch pedal i think it'll be a while before i'll need to shift without a clutch

[jp-]

It's not the carriers. They are subject to each and every State's Department of Insurance (all 50 of them). All consumer retail auto is heavily regulated with legislation. I think it is illegal to offer a policy for more than one year. The premium you pay is very heavily influenced by the state in which you live. They approve the rate structure. They tell the carriers how much they must keep invested for losses. So on and so forth. All the way down to broker licensing. I also think there is a law that precludes carriers from asking for additional premiums in the event of a loss. That is why they charge high rates over term. The policy is basically a simple contract stating if you pay 500 a month they will cover losses up to the policy limit less deductible.

The legislation in place is meant to help the consumer. It is generally a good thing.

EwS


Eric I was thinking about this some more and just had one last question for you. If it was statistically determined that Asians had a much higher rate of auto accidents, would it be fair to charge all Asians higher insurance rates?

[Eric W S]

Eric I was thinking about this some more and just had one last question for you. If it was statistically determined that Asians had a much higher rate of auto accidents, would it be fair to charge all Asians higher insurance rates?

Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

In real terms, if your unsafe and a bad driver (whatever your ethnicity, political views and religious views), your unsafe driving habits come back to haunt you in a big way when you renew. And unsafe drivers have to continually pare off all but the minimal coverage to meet the law. So at one point in time they start to see the fruit of their poor habits when they get nothing in return for their bad habits and now have a loan on a peice of scrap.

[Rineheitzgabot]

[quote=Eric W S]Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

I think what Jp is asking (and now I am hooked) is if it were STATISTICALLY proven that Asians were unsafe drivers. You and I know that ethnicity doesn't matter, but if there were a specific "group" that beyond a reasonable doubt, had more personal and property damage, would it be unfair to charge them more?

[jp-]

Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

In real terms, if your unsafe and a bad driver (whatever your ethnicity, political views and religious views), your unsafe driving habits come back to haunt you in a big way when you renew. And unsafe drivers have to continually pare off all but the minimal coverage to meet the law. So at one point in time they start to see the fruit of their poor habits when they get nothing in return for their bad habits and now have a loan on a peice of scrap.


Ok. We have determined that discrimination based on race is unfair. Why do you make a distinction based on age?

Employers are prohibited from discriminating by race, gender, or age.

[jp-]

Alright, I think I have figured out my own problem.

It's not age per se, but driver experience. So the only thing they are discriminating against is the amount of your driver experience. It all makes sense now. I just never thought about it beyond the age part. I suppose it's the same idea that a pilot must have 3000+ hours to be a Medivac pilot. If you don't have that, you can be legally "discriminated" against.

And employers can discriminate based on work experience.

I have seen the light...

[Eric W S]

[quote=Eric W S]Yes it would be unfair. And it would be a catastrophic business decision. You ideally want to the highest population of safest drivers regardless of ethnicity. Nothing else matters to carriers except your losses and driving record.

I think what Jp is asking (and now I am hooked) is if it were STATISTICALLY proven that Asians were unsafe drivers. You and I know that ethnicity doesn't matter, but if there were a specific "group" that beyond a reasonable doubt, had more personal and property damage, would it be unfair to charge them more?

I understood the question. Re-read the answer. Satistics are a predicitve discipline. Therefore there will never be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as you say. That is a legal term, not a mathematical one. Populations never follow the statistical norm in reality. Mutations, deviations, et al.

It is a moot/stupid point to argue anyway. If you are an unsafe dirver, with large losses, then the carrier charges you more. Period. In reality. Right now. Ergo, your ethnicity has nothing to do with it. And it is "unfair" (immoral) to bring that into the ****ysis of potential risk.

So why would you care what caucasians or asians or purple people eaters are being charged for premiums? Common sense says you wouldn't. You should be more concerned if bad drivers and people who wreck stuff are being charged more. Which they are.

[Rineheitzgabot]

[quote=Rineheitzgabot]

I understood the question. Re-read the answer. Satistics are a predicitve discipline. Therefore there will never be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" as you say. That is a legal term, not a mathematical one. Populations never follow the statistical norm in reality. Mutations, deviations, et al.

It is a moot/stupid point to argue anyway. If you are an unsafe dirver, with large losses, then the carrier charges you more. Period. In reality. Right now. Ergo, your ethnicity has nothing to do with it. And it is "unfair" (immoral) to bring that into the ****ysis of potential risk.

So why would you care what caucasians or asians or purple people eaters are being charged for premiums? Common sense says you wouldn't. You should be more concerned if bad drivers and people who wreck stuff are being charged more. Which they are.



Good Lord, brother.

The tone of your response seemed as though I had touched a nerve. My intention was not to be annoying. Nor was I trying to corner you. You are correct, for business purposes, it is a moot/stupid point--philosophically, it is not.

Okay, I admit, I am fascinated with how life and law interact, and how inconsistencies rise to the surface. Law is filled with inconsistencies. This insrance thing is one of them. Example: If a pregnant woman is ******ed, it is considered "two counts", by the law; but abortion is legal. Please understand that I am not spouting politics, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency.

You are holding firm on some, anti-discrimination thing. No one is accusing you of discrmination. JP asks, why age, then? I do too. I have been dealing with employment law for 13 years. There is a fairly new movement in age discrimination for young employees, as well as old. That is taking a certain group, and treating them differently. This won't "fly" in any other realm of life; so why is the insurance industry allowed to do it?

Again, pointing out inconsistencies, not looking for an answer. I am not on a crusade against the insurance industry. I did, re-read your response, and it did not help. However, I am retracting the question, for God's sake, don't try to answer it. A reasonable response would have been, "Damn, I don't know why discrimination is sometimes legal and sometimes not. Oh well, life goes on." I realize this is not a forum where law and philosphy are discussed, so I am stopping now.

[jp-]

See my above post. I think I figured it out.

Rineheitzgabot, we're on the same page.

[Eric W S]

[quote=Eric W S]



Good Lord, brother.

The tone of your response seemed as though I had touched a nerve. My intention was not to be annoying. Nor was I trying to corner you. You are correct, for business purposes, it is a moot/stupid point--philosophically, it is not.

Okay, I admit, I am fascinated with how life and law interact, and how inconsistencies rise to the surface. Law is filled with inconsistencies. This insrance thing is one of them. Example: If a pregnant woman is ******ed, it is considered "two counts", by the law; but abortion is legal. Please understand that I am not spouting politics, just pointing out an obvious inconsistency.

You are holding firm on some, anti-discrimination thing. No one is accusing you of discrmination. JP asks, why age, then? I do too. I have been dealing with employment law for 13 years. There is a fairly new movement in age discrimination for young employees, as well as old. That is taking a certain group, and treating them differently. This won't "fly" in any other realm of life; so why is the insurance industry allowed to do it?

Again, pointing out inconsistencies, not looking for an answer. I am not on a crusade against the insurance industry. I did, re-read your response, and it did not help. However, I am retracting the question, for God's sake, don't try to answer it. A reasonable response would have been, "Damn, I don't know why discrimination is sometimes legal and sometimes not. Oh well, life goes on." I realize this is not a forum where law and philosphy are discussed, so I am stopping now.

That's funny.

It's doubtful you'll ever aggrevate me online. Nor did I respond in an aggrevated or hostile manner to your initial inane implication.

You are the only one speaking about discrimination. Not I. You seem to have some sort of weird fetish for it.

Not one of your recent examples points out an inconsistency with anything really. Social law and business laws are different. It is not something even worthy of pondering. Here you go. Pricing applied to each and every consumer equally isn't discriminatory. Charging higher prices to inexperienced drivers is just good business and isn't illegal or immoral (like true discrimination is).

If you like responding with chump-speak, so be it.

And for the record, I am still not aggrevated nor have you touched a nerve. I spent a boat load of money on educating myself and reserve the right to be well written and articulate.

[thixon]

....And all of the above has what to do with Rovers?

I have an idea. I've got about a bazillion frequent flyer miles from all the business travel I do. Why don't I arrange to fly the two of you to a neutral location, give both of you medievil weapons of destruction, and let you bash each other till you can't stand it anymore. I'll video the whole thing, and post it here for the rest of the members of this board to see. It'll be way more entertaining than reading these posts. :thumb-up:


Somthing like this is what I had in mind.

[jp-]

[quote=Rineheitzgabot]

That's funny.

It's doubtful you'll ever aggrevate me online. Nor did I respond in an aggrevated or hostile manner to your initial inane implication.

You are the only one speaking about discrimination. Not I. You seem to have some sort of weird fetish for it.

Not one of your recent examples points out an inconsistency with anything really. Social law and business laws are different. It is not something even worthy of pondering. Here you go. Pricing applied to each and every consumer equally isn't discriminatory. Charging higher prices to inexperienced drivers is just good business and isn't illegal or immoral (like true discrimination is).

If you like responding with chump-speak, so be it.

And for the record, I am still not aggrevated nor have you touched a nerve. I spent a boat load of money on educating myself and reserve the right to be well written and articulate.

"You need to check your tone girl. Put your inside voice on before I put your a** outside."

-Dave Chapelle

I think your tone was a little aggravated, however, it matters not to me. All I was digging for was an understanding of your position.

Like Rine, I do see an interest in looking at social and business law. If universal pricing is not discriminatory, how can we make rich people pay more in taxes without calling that discrimination based on personal income?

[jp-]

....And all of the above has what to do with Rovers?

I have an idea. I've got about a bazillion frequent flyer miles from all the business travel I do. Why don't I arrange to fly the two of you to a neutral location, give both of you medievil weapons of destruction, and let you bash each other till you can't stand it anymore. I'll video the whole thing, and post it here for the rest of the members of this board to see. It'll be way more entertaining than reading these posts. :thumb-up:


Somthing like this is what I had in mind.

Thixon, your medieval comments have angered me and I challenge you to a medieval duel. You can have your sword. I will bring my M16.

[LaneRover]

Thixon, your medieval comments have angered me and I challenge you to a medieval duel. You can have your sword. I will bring my M16.

Unless you bring bullets too I'm putting my money on Thixon. . . .

[Rineheitzgabot]

[quote=Rineheitzgabot]

That's funny.

It's doubtful you'll ever aggrevate me online. Nor did I respond in an aggrevated or hostile manner to your initial inane implication.

You are the only one speaking about discrimination. Not I. You seem to have some sort of weird fetish for it.

Not one of your recent examples points out an inconsistency with anything really. Social law and business laws are different. It is not something even worthy of pondering. Here you go. Pricing applied to each and every consumer equally isn't discriminatory. Charging higher prices to inexperienced drivers is just good business and isn't illegal or immoral (like true discrimination is).

If you like responding with chump-speak, so be it.

And for the record, I am still not aggrevated nor have you touched a nerve. I spent a boat load of money on educating myself and reserve the right to be well written and articulate.



"Inane"? "Chump-speak"? We'll just let the readers of this forum decide whether or not you are hostile/aggrevated.

By the way, if you are not worried about your conduct, why don't you divulge what company you work for, and try to encourage us to patronize it.:o

[Tim Smith]

All I gotta say is...
I just saved a bunch on my car insurance!!! :D











Seems appropriate to break this up.
But is it? :p

[thixon]

Thixon, your medieval comments have angered me and I challenge you to a medieval duel. You can have your sword. I will bring my M16.

JP,

My medieval comments angering you, has now angered me. I accept your challenge. Meet me on Friday, August 15th, 2025 at the top of mount everest. There we shall battle to the death, each of us wielding.......a herring.

The winner shall enjoy a pint of grog.

[Eric W S]

Question was answered and the only remarks relate directly to the tone of response, as opposed to its substance. I am fine with that. I don't make it a point of being a troll nor trolling this board, or any other.

Thixon, it doesn't have a thing to do with rovers. Someone asked me a question and I answered it. You have some extra money for airfare, I'd rather go to the UK on a parts search.