Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503
I was talking about claim losses on stolen cars specifically, after they have been stolen, not on the owners driving data. If any data would determine where the stolen cars go, overseas, chop shops, etc., gm could supply that to them, if they had collected any such data after the car was stolen, whether or not the owner had subscribed to On-Star.
|
What makes you think it hasn't ? (translation: I agree with you).
In the end it doesn't matter, because the only thing that matters to the underwriters (who make the rules) is raising premium revenues to cover the cost of the rising theft losses. And it's being played on both sides. And if they beat margin by
playing the regulators, then winner winner chicken dinner.
Another way to say what I'm saying is: Pretend you're the insurance company. Do you want to play bad cop and piss off a few spirited drivers and then become target of a class action lawsuit because you bought dirty data from GM? Or do you want to wear the white had and raise rates on everyone across the board while asking the state regulators to help you lean on GM and law enforcement to reduce theft -- while following it immediately with discounts to those who plug in a dongle and run the app, again all the while selling improved road safety and lower cost to voting constituents to the regulators? Which one will win you more customers, win the adoration of state regulators, while enjoying record margins? This ladies and germs, is your insurance industry hard at work.
