why do extra cars not driven much have such high premiums.

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:32 pm Post Subject:

They still have the risk on all five.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 06:46 am Post Subject:

Somewhat similar: I own two older cars. Not worth carrying collision/comp, yet I carry (as required by law in WA state) liability/prop. damage, etc. I am single, the only driver.

Ins. co. bills me full for separate policy for each car. Obviously I can drive only one at a time; their risk is only on one. Since there is no coverage on the car unless I am driving it, what is their risk?

Seems like they should only charge for one.

Am I missing something here? Seems logical to me, but probably there exists some ordinance that allows the ins. co. to charge like this.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 04:45 pm Post Subject: All are included

All the five cars are included bc they still pose risks, since either of them can be on road anytime

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 07:56 pm Post Subject:

Because of the probability or possibility that any car could be used with permission at anytime by the insured, makes sense that an additional risk should be considered. However, with insurers having managing risk down to a micro science calculating all probabilities, it would make sense also that the liability portion should be prorated based on use much like workmans comp. It's simply a money maker for insurers as they are well aware that not all vehicles can be driven by the insured at one time. They can probably cite the profit on these types of multiple coverages.

Just from a laymans point of view, it would seem if you could stack some coverages like uninsured motorists in some states one should also be able to sue for damages based on the entire amount or stacked number of the insured's combined liability from multiple policies.

I am sure there is some court decision that prohibits stacking of liability. I have a customer that has three mercedes, a lexus suv, and multiple other vehices that no one else drives but her. I am also sure her agent enjoys the commissions from having soldl multiples of duplicate coverages of liability knowing she can't drive them all at the same time. The likelihood of all of them being loaned or driven by others at the same time and needing all that liabiility protection is slim to none but profitable none the less for the insurer.

It might make more sense to insure the driver for liability based on the maxium risk possible on the most damage probable by the use of the vehicle most likely to inflict the highest damage. This would be a case where the rich don't get richer but get tagged more simply by having more toys available. By golly Wally, I think I just talked myself out of feeling sorry for some having to pay more.

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:34 pm Post Subject:

Mike pointed out a good point...you can let your kid, mom, cousin, brother, uncle, or the poor bum down the street drive one of your cars every day...how would anyone know, until they got into a wreck...You should be paying a little less on the one you don't drive often (yearly mileage), or maybe both of them have low annual miles so you already get those discounts (along with multi car discount).

Here's the thing. You decided (for whatever reason) you need two cars with one (named) driver. Your state requires them to be insured. How on earth could it possibly be managed to just switch the insurance from car to car, dependent upon the mood you were in on a particular day? (chosing which car to drive)...? It can't....

By golly Wally, I think I just talked myself out of feeling sorry for some having to pay more.

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:21 am Post Subject:

How on earth could it possibly be managed to just switch the insurance from car to car, dependent upon the mood you were in on a particular day?