When the law says they can't raise your insurance rates due to a glass claim, but free markets exist anyway

[SwampNut]

We've had a few insurance discussions here before, particularly with the expensive glass we have. Lately I've talked to a few people in a few states about their insurance changes/challenges. Hopefully this is some useful knowledge to understand both the practical matter of what to claim with insurance, and the concept of trying to control markets and profitability. The latter always has unintended consequences.

In Arizona, all insurance companies are required to offer glass coverage to you, and to include it up front without you asking. "Everyone" thinks this means it's somehow free, or mandatory, or something. For the Rivian it came out to be as much as a new windshield every 18 months, so I declined it. Everyone thinks I'm crazy, but this is just math. My last glass claim, on a car well known for rocks breaking the windshield (Jeep), was in 2018 or 17.

Now, many states, for sure CA, have laws saying they can't raise your rate for making glass claims. Sounds great right? Well, they can't raise your rate for THIS car on THIS policy. Change cars? Change policy? They can either raise the rate (within a mandated maximum) or just not do business with you any more at all. Many Californians are finding themselves totally denied coverage with high-end/low-cost companies who want to see zero or maybe one claim on your CLUE report. Because the glass just shows up as "claim over $1k" or similar. In addition you can lose your no-claims discounts if those are spelled out specifically, like mine is with Progressive. So they have to turn to the companies that accept higher risk/more claims, and charge accordingly. The specific one I first learned of was a friend talking about the new Costco insurance program which has excellent pricing, but they completely declined him because of two "claims." They were both just basic glass. Bye Felicia. Now he's going to be paying nearly double for a while until these fall off his CLUE report. The claims will end up costing more than just paying cash would have cost.

So do the math before you even think about the glass coverage. Will it be worth it? Not just in the coverage dollars, but after you make a claim, what if your total cost of insurance goes way up? The claims will be on your record for three, five, or ten years depending on the severity and the state. I'm pretty sure a pure glass claim would be three. The ten year is reserved for egregious things like hitting a bus full of nuns while drunk. Five is for major losses but I'm not sure the exact line for that. So assume that for three years, you might spend 50-150% more. If I remove the no-claims discount from my quote, it jumps a lot. If I quote with the companies that accept high risk, even without claims, the cost is triple.

Sponsored

 

[schlosrat]

Does it matter if the claim arose out of an accident where the other driver was 100% at fault? I suspect not. I'm probably screwed because, here in WA, the state minimum property damage coverage is only $10K, and the cost for what might appear to be a relatively minor low-speed fender bender can exceed that on our vehicles.

I was moderately lucky, and the other driver's insurance did cover my $500 deductible even though the total bill went over $10K. My company (Progressive) was good about processing the claim, and subrogated it to the other driver's company (BristolWest). I've no idea how long this will be on my CLUE report, but I suspect I'm going to be sort of stuck with the policy I've got unless they drop me and I'm forced to shop around under these circumstances.

It's such a sh*tty thing that another driver's negligence can put you in this circumstance.

 

[PaythePiper]

Never used to be this way. Why did it change? We all got greedy taking those ‘Get $150 visa gift card!’ to replace a windshield. It’s not rocket science

 

[SwampNut]

Does it matter if the claim arose out of an accident where the other driver was 100% at fault?

For the no-claims discount, it was explained to me that a claim which is not my fault is still a claim. For the purposes of rating the base insurance cost, not-at-fault is probably no. However my friend who's an agent said that people with multiple not-at-fault rear-endings do get considered higher risk.

Why did it change?

Because government attempted to control behavior and profit, which always has unintended consequences. If you capped my cost recovery/profit for a class of people, I'd stop doing business with that class of people. Easy, obvious.

 

[PaythePiper]

For the no-claims discount, it was explained to me that a claim which is not my fault is still a claim. For the purposes of rating the base insurance cost, not-at-fault is probably no. However my friend who's an agent said that people with multiple not-at-fault rear-endings do get considered higher risk.



Because government attempted to control behavior and profit, which always has unintended consequences. If you capped my cost recovery/profit for a class of people, I'd stop doing business with that class of people. Easy, obvious.

I’ve replaced a ton of windshields here in AZ. Never raised my rates or counted as a ‘claim’. But in the last couple of years it’s different.

 

[SwampNut]

My last replacement was around 2018 and stayed on the CLUE report for five years as misc claim over a certain amount.

 

[orttauq]

Does it matter if the claim arose out of an accident where the other driver was 100% at fault? I suspect not. I'm probably screwed because, here in WA, the state minimum property damage coverage is only $10K, and the cost for what might appear to be a relatively minor low-speed fender bender can exceed that on our vehicles.

I was moderately lucky, and the other driver's insurance did cover my $500 deductible even though the total bill went over $10K. My company (Progressive) was good about processing the claim, and subrogated it to the other driver's company (BristolWest). I've no idea how long this will be on my CLUE report, but I suspect I'm going to be sort of stuck with the policy I've got unless they drop me and I'm forced to shop around under these circumstances.

It's such a sh*tty thing that another driver's negligence can put you in this circumstance.

I am in WA too and had this rate increase happen with Progressive (motorcycle) but not with USAA (everything else).
I was rear-end while stopped at a light. Other driver admitted to was ticked for texting. At next renewal for the motorcycle progressive raised my rate by 150+% for having a claim. The other driver's insurance covered the claim completely so I never contacted my insurance but I still got hit with an increase from Progressive, but not USAA. I moved my insurance to AZ and have had 2-3 glass claims across my vehicles and have never had a rate increase as a result.

 

[azbill]

My last replacement was around 2018 and stayed on the CLUE report for five years as misc claim over a certain amount.

Lucky you, especially in AZ. I replaced my R1T windshield in April 2024, because it had a crack across the driver side. In July 2024, I got a rock hit with 3 cracks, down low on the passenger side. I have not fixed the windshield in over a year, still waiting for it to get hit on the driver side.

My daughter once had her windshield replaced, and on the drive home got another crack. For me, the only thing that is more frequent in AZ than windshields is tire damage.

 

[SwampNut]

For me, the only thing that is more frequent in AZ than windshields is tire damage.

I've had separations, maybe related to heat, but no damage (on road).

 

[Yossarian]

A bit off topic, but a number of years ago, I had three accidents, all while parked legally. Two were minor fender benders but also a more serious one with my Passat VR6: it was rammed by a wildly intoxicated and speeding driver whose Crown Vic plowed into my VW with enough force to drive it up and over the curb and onto the lawn, totaling it in the process.

In all the cases, the other driver's insurance policy paid the claim, but that didn't stop my insurance company from raising my rates. The explanation was that I was an accident-prone driver, an ironic description given that I waS not behind the wheel for any of the accidents.

 

[LivingInKaos]

Nationwide cancelled me after my glass claim - the only issue stated on the disclosure. I had no other claims, tickets, accidents anywhere.

In talking with the Rivian Insurance agent, he indicated that Nationwide was on a path to reduce there auto policy profile and since the Rivian was the only thing I had insured by them, it put me in that scope.

 

[SwampNut]

"We're with the government and we're here to help."

The thought process on passing a law requiring insurance to offer a zero-deductible coverage on glass was to prevent people going around with broken windshields because they don't have $100 or $500 to spend.

The result is my situation, where it's so expensive to get this coverage that I go without it. So I might go with a broken windshield because I don't want to spend $1800.

I just talked to a multi-state/multi-company agent, and where you can opt for a $500 glass deductible...the coverage is cheap. If I had a broken windshield, I'd spend $500 faster than $1800. But those are my choices, either $1800 if the event happens, or pay so much for coverage that it is economically unfeasible. The government decided I can't choose for myself.

This is from a friend:

My wife drove her Subaru down from Alaska to AZ so I had to notify Progressive of the change. In the course of the discussion they asked if I wanted windshield insurance. I asked if a claim for windshield replacement is the same as an accident claim. I could not get a straight answer. I was transferred t two different departments and neither of those could give me a straight answer. When I was transferred back to the original agent I asked if she was insured through Progressive, she said yes. I then asked if she had windshield insurance and she said no. That answered my question.

Sponsored