Just got a $400/yr auto insurance decrease by switching from Esurance to Allstate.
Then I find out that Allstate bought Esurance, and Esurance is supposed to be the 'cheaper' option.
It's not the "cheaper" option but it is the company that accepts riskier drivers. Let's say there are two types of drivers, safe (Type A) and risky (Type B) and that there are two insurance companies, safe (Company A) and risky (Company B). Type A drivers belong in Company A and Type B in Company B, fairly obviously. But if you're a Type B and try to get into Company A you likely will not be offered coverage, or it will have a large surcharge. What most people don't know is that if you're Type A and in Company B
you will often pay more than if you were in Company A. That's because Company B is actuarily structured to accept risky drivers and even safe drivers will get some additional risk assessment.
Not to mention I got rear-ended nearly a month ago now, only have light damage, and literally just got off the phone with all-state (the kid who hit me has them) and they finally approved it. There's about 10 hours of actual repair work on the vehicle, so 2 business days to fix it, but it took them about 20 business days to approve a rear-end accident claim.
They ain't the only ones. I had to deal with farmers and getting t-boned from a driver who ran through a red light (mind you, it was about 5 seconds after the light had turned red and my light had turned green). Kid didn't even make an effort to stop/slow down. After about 2 weeks or better, they had finally "heard the story from their customer" despite numerous police reports and citations being issued solely to their customer for running a red fucking light. Car was severely damaged a day prior to Thanksgiving, and got it back about a week after New Years.
I believe the kid had Farmer's Insurance. My guess is that all of them work like that. Just kinda pissed me off that Allstate didn't really do anything to help our side, and essentially told us to deal with them up to the point that they try to come back on us. As my old man says, if I am paying your premiums for insurance... when insurance is in question, you would think your insurer would at least step in and fight some of the fight for you. Guess not.
In both of these cases the insurer has two conflicting legal requirements: a statutory duty to the claimant to handle claims in a timely manner and a contractual duty to the insured to negotiate on their behalf in good faith. If the insurer fails to settle the claim or reserve their rights within a certain time period, typically 30 days, they violate the statutory duty to the claimant. If the insurer fails to conduct a thorough investigation, which
always includes a statement from the insured, they are in breach of contract and covenant of good faith.
Typically, if the case is somewhat obvious given damage and police reports, the insurer will attempt to contact the insured for 30 days. If after that time the insured is not reached the insurer may settle based on their judgment. If the case is not obvious and the insured cannot be reached for a statement (which is different than the insured refusing to make a statement) the insurer will, probably 95% of the time, outright deny the claim. You see, the civil penalties for breach of contract and covenant of good faith are harsher than the statutory penalties for claims handling practices.
Insurers will always (read: almost always) insist on a statement from the insured before settling regardless of apparent fault.