What's wrong w/ this picture? (insurance rates)
01-08-2002, 08:51 PM
#1
Thread Starter
What's wrong w/ this picture? (insurance rates)
I just got my insurance renewal in the mail today and checked my new rates - no tickets or wrecks, so I guess everyone else in TX is driving them up. I have 3 street legal vehichles to insure, the S2000, a Tundra Ltd. (2wd w/ V8), and a Suzuki SV650S (a sporty but not super-fast bike, cost only $6,200 new OTD). I have the same exact coverage on all 3, 100/300/50, w/ a $500 comp/coll. deductible.
Guess which one is cheapest to insure? Unbelievably, the highest risk one - the S2000!
S2000 $404.50
Tundra $450.50
SV650S $436.50
I like the rate on the S2000, but somehow feel like I'm getting ripped off on the others...may be time to search for another insurer, esp. for the bike. Nationwide has def. become a lot less bike-friendly over the last year...
Guess which one is cheapest to insure? Unbelievably, the highest risk one - the S2000!
S2000 $404.50
Tundra $450.50
SV650S $436.50
I like the rate on the S2000, but somehow feel like I'm getting ripped off on the others...may be time to search for another insurer, esp. for the bike. Nationwide has def. become a lot less bike-friendly over the last year...
01-08-2002, 09:00 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Maricopa County, Arizona
Posts: 2,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tundras have bad rates due to losses incurred. High theft and they take more damage in an accident than other pickups.
How is the S2000 rated (low mileage) versus the Tundra as your commute vehicle?
How is the S2000 rated (low mileage) versus the Tundra as your commute vehicle?
01-08-2002, 09:17 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: brentwood
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1, if that 's for a year s coverage then I hate you ...
2, even if it's 6 month's I hate you
3, nationwide is'nt bike friendly, they would'nt insure my y2k gsxr 750 or my fathers hyabusa(spelling), they don't like hyperbikes...
I'm 23, live in new york and pay 1400 for liability on my 94 sentra xe, the s is costing me 2400 for full coverage
go figure, cause my nationwide agent say's that they assume I drive the higher priced car more often
even though it's a roadster
oh yeah and my bike with a different company was 996 a yea for liability and theft.. full coverage the cheapest I could find was 3550 so I passed and just got theft and liability
2, even if it's 6 month's I hate you
3, nationwide is'nt bike friendly, they would'nt insure my y2k gsxr 750 or my fathers hyabusa(spelling), they don't like hyperbikes...
I'm 23, live in new york and pay 1400 for liability on my 94 sentra xe, the s is costing me 2400 for full coverage
go figure, cause my nationwide agent say's that they assume I drive the higher priced car more often even though it's a roadster oh yeah and my bike with a different company was 996 a yea for liability and theft.. full coverage the cheapest I could find was 3550 so I passed and just got theft and liability
Trending Topics
01-09-2002, 04:29 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ithaca UPSTATE NY
Posts: 2,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Triple-H
My '85 Nighthawk 650 costs $150 to insure for 12 months!
My '85 Nighthawk 650 costs $150 to insure for 12 months!
01-09-2002, 05:59 AM
#10
Former Sponsor
The S2000 is not the highest risk, and your rates are telling you this. The rates are developed on the basis of very sophisticated actuarial mathemetics that take into account a whole slew of variables having to do with the car (accident history, crash worthiness, cost of repair, etc,) and the driver (age, gender, driving record, etc). The mathemtical model is predicting, based on these variables, that the S2000 is the safest bet for the insurance company, which is why the rates are lower.