I got a letter the other day, and apparently Plymouth Rock will not be renewing my insurance policy. I have a pretty clean driver’s record (no accidents that were ruled my fault, one speeding ticket in past 5 years). My insurance agent said Plymouth Rock is pulling 30% of their policies in MA based on what they perceive as bad investments. I am wondering if they are targeting Mini owners as bad investment; maybe due to high repair costs. Anyone else recently get dropped by Plymouth Rock?

 

Hmm... I don't have any problem with them before ... although I never have any accidents here in MA (knock on wood).

 

Not dumped by Plymouth Rock, but my Insurance with State Farms consistently has gone up since getting Molly. $7.16 the 1st 6 mo. and $19.?? this last 6mo. I'm the primary driver and no accidents or tickets in 10+ years. I think it's time to look for another co. for Molly...any suggestions??

 

I think they mean their investment not yours (the MINI)
Here is why it would make sense to drop the MINI from Plymouth Rock point of view.
1. MINIs high resale value-not good for totaled pay outs.
2. High costs to repair.
3 High costs of parts.
4. Lack of "generic" parts.

With number 1 for example my case, I got a MINI for a hot smoking deal at $17k, totaled it 2 years and 112k miles later. Pay out was S19,600, cause they go by your local market resale value. Insurance companies can make better money on a ford fucus payout that depreciates 50-70% the second you sign the dotted line or a toyota corolla that has generic parts for the entire car that go for 45-75% of the price of oem.

 

I agree, and I am wondering if that is why I got picked for the 30% downsizing. It would be interesting to see if a bunch of MA mini owners were selected. This is more of a curiosity question for me rather then a witch hunt. If they don’t want my money I am sure someone else will, no big deal.

 

You indicated "no accidents that were ruled my fault". I don't want to pry but let's say that you were in 3 accidents in a 3 year period. There is a slight chance that even if the accidents were not your fault, they may consider that statistically, you may be a risk that they do not want to take a chance on. They may only look at it statistically and not investigate the exact nature of your specific accidents, thnking that defensive driving usually lessons the chance for accidents to happen. Sometimes an accident can just happen to a parked car and in that case, defensive driving has nothing to do with it. Anyway, maybe it is the frequency of accidents even if you were not at fault.

 

Rear ended on major highway by women on cell phone 6 years ago (almost totaled), side swiped by guy on cell phone who ran a stop sign 5 years ago (ended up settling with out insurance). Lesson - don't mess with your cell phone and drive.

I also live in Boston, which has the worst drivers in the USA (imo), so I get them wanting to pull out. I was just curious if one of the reasons for selecting me was my Mini. I am guessing not because I bet there would have been a bunch more people in the same place. Guess it was just luck of the draw. Thanks

 

I've been thinking about AAA insurance. My current insurance is 6 or 700 per six months. I have a perfect record. Does anyone have AAA in California?

 

From my recollection, MA has some weird insurance rules that penalize you regardless of "fault." Thus the unavailability of traditional insurance companies and the higher rates in general. I think my insurance dropped by 50% when I moved out of the state.

 

Kinda, sorta:

 

Right... my point is that I think your rates in MA are likely to go up in general regardless of fault since the insurance companies are at risk regardless of fault. I seem to recall it happening to me when I got smooshed by someone else but I don't recall the details as it was a long time ago.

 

That's what I originally thought, too, but it seems "no fault" only applies to personal injury, not vehicle/property damage.

That said, I'll gladly defer to someone with greater expertise in this matter.

 

I do not know either. My conjecture is that in no-fault states, that since their liabilities are unrelated to "cause", so do their adjustments to their probability tables ignore "cause" as well.