Automobile insurance is too confusing
Campus Times
February 6, 1998
Under the direction and guidance of Insurance Commissioner Charles Quackenbush,
the State Department of Insurance has continuously enforced new criteria
for automobile insurance within the state of California.
Ten years ago, the Department passed the voter-approved Proposition
103, with the intent of improving driving regulations and insurance rates
for all drivers.
Prior to the ratification of Prop. 103, automobile insurance companies
based a client's insurance rate according to his or her residential zip
code-those who lived in the suburbs automatically had lower rates than those
who lived in urban areas such as Los Angeles, even if both driving records
were exactly the same.
Under the new proposition, the idea of stating or utilizing zip codes
was eliminated, and chances that insured drivers have equal premiums became
more likely. The definition of a "good driver" was clarified;
now it is someone with "at least three years of driving experience
[as a licensed driver]." This status also allows one vehicular accident,
major or minor.
Each of these improvements are beneficial and were voter-approved, the
problem is the time it took the Department to enforce the new regulations.
Most recently, I have anxiously anticipated the arrival of my renewed
automobile insurance bill. Expecting to pay a little under $1,000 a year
for my '77 Chevy Nova, I was surprised to find that my insurance rates had
changed dramatically.
According to my new policy, Proposition 103 was just implemented by
my insurance company, and because I only have eight months of licensed experience,
I am forced to pay an additional $600 for renewed automobile insurance.
When I received my license only eight months ago, I did so with dutiful
intent.
I wanted to avoid the hassle of driver's education and behind-the-wheel
training, and it seemed wise to wait until I was no longer a minor to receive
my permit. Personally, having a permit at the age of 18 was just fine; getting
my license at 19 was even more convenient.
And so the concept of automobile insurance became a part of my life
less than a year ago, but, I never expected the decision to affect me so
suddenly.
Perhaps if I had just chosen to go through the endless hours of driver's
ed. and training when I was 16, I could have avoided this entire ordeal.
At that time, however, I did not have the money to purchase auto insurance.
Even if I did have the money, my insurance costs would have been greater
because I was a minor.
Now, I am left confused because I do not know with whom I should be
upset.
I could blame my insurance company, of course, for failing to notify
me of these changes in advance. But, from my understanding, they are not
obliged to notify the customer until 20 days prior to the arrival of the
bill. Whatever happened to the idea of the customer coming first?
I could also point the finger at the State Department of Insurance for
taking so long to enforce the proposition. I may have avoided the worry
of rates going up and down since the beginning.
On the other hand, I could also be the one to blame because I did not
take the initiative to start driving when I was eligible to do so, and when
I could have had three years of experience at this point.
Perhaps I am overly-frustrated because I could barely afford to pay
what was formerly my first insurance payment, and affording another $600
is impossible.
In every situation there is a good side, so I guess I should be optimistic.
At least now I could use that insurance money to buy myself a new pair of
walking shoes.
Araceli Esparza, a sophomore journalism major, is features editor
of the Campus Times. She can be reached by e-mail at esparzaa@ulv.edu.
