Re: Insurance Thread

[Linus Toy <linust@mindspring.com>]

>From: "Al Powell" <apowell@agcom.tamu.edu>

SNIP
>Case in point:  My 1983 Datsun 280ZXT vs my 1990 Audi 200.
...
>Guess which costs a LOT more to insure?  The Z-car, of course!! Even 
>though they have LESS cash exposure on the car, they charge more.  No 
>adjustment for the driver's age or good driving record, nosiree.

not to defend the insurers, but its more than just the cash exposure based
on value.  there's also the risk of loss, to any number of "perils"
including theft, break-in, etc.  which car is more likely to be stolen?
which more likely to be broken into?  which costs more to repair?  

>This makes NO sense.  Their exposure to liability is the same with 
>either car, because that's based on the DRIVER.  The Z-0car can be 

don't know what insurer you have, but Farmers here in Washington does rate
liability on the driver, regardless of car (at least for "normal" cars).
small discounts for ABS on the theory that you have more opportunity to
avoid damaging someone else's property with ABS than without.  airbags only
reduce personal injury premium (let's see how long that lasts)

>totaled for $4500 or so, and the Audi would cost twice as much - but 
>they charge based on the 17-year-olds driving clapped out old Z-cars.

we've just found the same thing moving from an '89 Accord (~$6-7000--cheap
enough for the kids to afford... seen all the hopped up Hondas lately?  the
ones with the stock 1.5" exhaust system leading to a 3" tail pipe :)  to a
'94 Volvo turbo wagon (about 3x).  6 mo insurance prem on the Accord:
$288.  for the Volvo: $325.  go figure.  (here's part of it:  parts for the
rwd Volvo are suprisingly reasonable compared to the Honda)

--linus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* linus toy                       email:  linust@mindspring.com      *
* mercer island, wa                                                  *
----------------------------------------------------------------------