Rich,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your message, but we needed to recharge
the fire extinguisher after downloading your email.
Rich, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are inaccurate in your
characterizations of the content of my original message and my statements.
Our agency sells classic car insurance and continues to provide it for our
regular clients, but we no longer mass market the product for the reasons
stated in my original message.
Our agency mission is to provide protection of our insured's assets, not to do
whatever we can just to make a sale. For example, the insurance protection that
you outline ($100,000 liability/$35,000 UM) would not be offered in our agency
as it is inadequate protection for anyone. (One of
our insureds was recently struck and killed while stopped at a stop sign. He
leaves a wife and 3 small children. I would not want to have to face his family
and discuss the "benefits" of $35,000 UM coverage.) Anyone who chooses to
purchase coverage other than what we recommend is free to
do so, but they must do so elsewhere and not through our firm.
You insinuate that we compete against classic policies by attempting to
persuade owners against purchasing classic car insurance. Incorrect. We
regularly refer owners to the various classic car specialists when they inquire
for such insurance.
I offer opinions and advice on this list and others without any interest in or
intention of financial gain. I am licensed to sell insurance only in the State
of CT and therefore have nothing to gain from posting information in this
National/International forum.
If you choose to take issue with anything I state or if you choose to ignore
it........fine. Have a question? I would be happy to respond to the best of my
knowledge and within the scope of CT law and statute.
If you reread my original message, the issues I raised regarding classic
insurance had nothing to do with actuarial data, but with vehicle use and low
limits of liability chosen by uninformed insureds or recommended by
inexperienced personnel. Until you experience it, there is nothing
quite so upsetting and painful as the uninsured or underinsured event.
I am painfully aware of the "dim view" that most people take with regards to
insurance agents, but our firm and its agents are held in high esteem by our
peers within the insurance industry. We are considered professionals, hold
professional designations and participate in outside
activities for State insurance organizations without financial compensation. We
are respected for our knowledge and our ethics.
I have reread my original message and don't find any statement critical of any
classic car insurance company, not by name, nor in general. (I have my own cars
insured through such an insurer.)
However, I will reiterate my original statement that as a book of business,
classic car insurance is populated by insureds/policies with low liability
limits, inadequate uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage and vehicle usage
that is outside of the use restrictions. All of this is more
a function of the DIY nature of the product and not necessarily that of the
individual insurance companies.
As an independent agency, we have the luxury of representing a number of
insurance companies and can offer the appropriate policy at the appropriate
price. We also represent companies that compete head-to-head with the "15
minute" company, so we are not pocketing any excess profits in our
office.
I think I have addressed all of your statements and allegations. I hope you
take it for what it is, honest advice for anyone who chooses to read it.
Jay Fishbein
Independent Insurance Agent, CT
AN-5
HAN-6
Innocenti-S
Lotus 7
etc. etc.
Rich Locasso wrote:
> Dear Jay-
>
> I read your comments and was struck by the conflict of interest that
> you had, selling full price policies in direct competition with classic
> car insurer's like Hagerty, which happens to be my insurer.
>
> Even though AAA has reasonable rates and I use them for my daily
> transportation, I was delighted to learn that Hagerty would insure my
> BT7 (liability 100,000, uninsured motorist 35,000, medical 5,000 and
> collision with no deductible) for the low sum of $116 annual.
>
> I recently added an old Buick Riviera with identical coverage for an
> additional $23.
>
> Similar coverage from a non-classic insurer would cost over a thousand
> dollars annual.
>
> You may assert otherwise as quoted below but I disagree strongly.
>Since
> you cannot compete on price, you can only market with fear, uncertainty
> and doubt which is often an effective marketing tool but not a
> compelling arguement.
>
> Many business take a "dim view" of the price shopper because they do
> not want to compromise profit margins and compete on price unless thay
> absolutely have to. Shopping for price is at the heart of competition
> and one of the few tools that us consumers have to find value.
>
> Hagerty is not in business to lose money and I believe that actuarial
> data show clearly that accident rates with classic car owners and
> especially those with multiple autos are very low. Frankly, I get angry
> when someone impugns my insurance company without evidence of wrong
> doing.
>
> You are entitled to your opinions. I will have my own as well plus
>keep
> my $900 in my pocket and not yours.
>
> Rich Locasso
> Huntington Beach, CA
> BT7
>
> type79@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
>
> > Our agency takes a dim view on the price shopper. The reason being that the
>price shopper ONLY looks at the price and often goes underinsured or uninsured
>in important areas. The price shopper views professional advice as padding the
>premium and in the end puts their assets at risk.
> >
>
> > In my opinion, too many classic car insurance scenarios are a time bomb for
>many owners and insureds. Classic car insurance is characterized by
>dangerously low liability limits, dangerously low uninsured/underinsured
>liability limits, and prohibited use of the classic vehicles.
> >
>
> > Jay Fishbein
> > Independent Insurance Agent, CT
> > AN-5
> > HAN-6
> > Innocenti-S
> > Lotus 7
> > etc. etc.
|