Thursday, August 20, 2015

Consumer Reports on auto insurance, part II

(Part I is here.)

------

Last post, I linked to an article showing auto insurance profit margins were very low, less than 10 percent of premiums. And, I wondered, if that's the case, how is it possible that CR reports such a large difference in pricing between companies?

In its research, Consumer Reports got quotes for thousands of different drivers -- that is, different combinations of age/sex/and ZIP code -- from five different companies. The average premiums worked out to:  

$1,540 Allstate
$1,414 Progressive
$1,177 Geico
$1,147 State Farm
$  817 USAA

How is it possible that Allstate charged 34% more than Geico, but still made less profit (and only 5.3% profit, at that)? How does USAA stay in business charging a third what the others charge, when those others are barely in the black, as is?

For anyone to take those numbers seriously, Consumer Reports has to explain this apparent impossibility. Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that something went badly wrong with CR's analysis or methodology.

Which I think is what happened. I'm going to take a guess at what's actually going on. I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet it's pretty close.

------

With margins so low, and competition so tight, companies really, really have to get their risk estimates right. If not, they're in trouble.

Let's make some simple assumptions, to keep the analysis clean. First, suppose all customers shop around and always choose the lowest-priced quote. 

Second, suppose that the average teenage driver carries $3,000 in annual risk -- that is, the average teenager will cause $3,000 worth of claims each year. 

Now, we, the blog readers, know the correct number is $3,000 because we just assumed it -- we gave ourselves a God's-eye view. The insurance companies don't have that luxury. They have to estimate it themselves. That's hard work, and they're not going to be perfect, because there's so much randomness involved. (Also, they're all using different datasets.)

Maybe the actuaries at Progressive come up with an estimate of $3,200, while Geico figures it's $2,700. (I'll ignore profit to keep things simple -- if that bothers you, add $100 to every premium and the argument will still work.)

What happens? Every teenager winds up buying insurance from Geico. And Geico loses huge amounts of money: $300 per customer, as the claims start to roll in. Eventually, Geico figures out they got it wrong, and they raise their premiums to $3,000. They're still the cheapest, but now, at least, they're not bleeding cash.

This goes on for a bit, but, of course, Progressive isn't sitting still. They hire some stats guys, do some "Insurance Moneyball," and eventually they make a discovery: good students are better risks than poor students. They find that good students claim $2,500 a year, while the others claim $3,500.

Progressive changes their quotes to correspond to their new knowledge about the "driving talent" of their customers. Instead of charging $3,200 to everyone, they now quote the good students $2,500, and the rest $3,500, to match their risk profiles. That's not because they like the pricing that way, or because they think good students deserve a reward ... it's just what the data shows, the same way it shows that pitchers who strike out a lot of batters have better futures than pitchers who don't.

Now, when the good students shop around, they get quotes of $2,500 (Progressive) and $3,000 (Geico). The rest get quotes of $3,500 (Progressive) and $3,000 (Geico).

So, what happens? The good students go to Progressive, and the rest go to Geico. Progressive makes money, but Geico starts bleeding again: they're charging $3,000 to drivers who cost them $3,500 per year.

Geico quickly figures out that Progressive knows something they don't -- that, somehow, Progressive figured out which teenage customers are lower risk, and stole them all away by undercutting their price. But they don't know how to tell low risk from high risk. They don't know that it has to do with grades. So, Geico can't just follow suit in their own pricing.

So what do they do? They realize they've been "Billy Beaned," and they give up. They raise their price from $3,000 to $3,500. That's the only way they can keep from going bankrupt.

The final result is that, now, when a good student looks for quotes, he sees

$2,500 Progressive
$3,500 Geico

When a bad student looks for quotes, he sees

$3,500 Progressive
$3,500 Geico

Then Consumer Reports comes along, and gets a quote for both. When they average them for their article, they find

$3,000 Progressive
$3,500 Geico

And they triumphantly say, "Look, Progressive is 14 percent cheaper than Geico!"

But it's not ... not really. Because, no good student actually pays the $3,500 Geico quotes them. Since everyone buys from the cheapest provider, Geico's "good student" quote is completely irrelevant. They could quote the good students a price of $10 million, and it wouldn't make any difference at all to what anyone paid.

That's why averaging all the quotes, equally weighted, is not a valid measure of which insurance company gives the best deal.

------

Want a more obvious example?

Company X:
------------------------------
$1,300      25-year-old male
$1,000      30-year-old female
$1 million  16-year-old male

Company Y:
------------------------------
$1,400      25-year-old male
$1,100      30-year-old female
$4,000      16-year-old male

By CR's measure, which is to take the average, company Y is much, much cheaper than company X: $2,166 to $334,100. But in real life, which company is giving its customers greater value? Company X, obviously. NOBODY is actually accepting the $1,000,000 quote. In calculating your average, you have to give it a weight of zero. 

Once you've discarded the irrelevant outlier, you see that, contrary to what the overall average suggested, company X is cheaper than company Y in every (other) case.

------

Want a non-insurance analogy?

"Darget" competes with Target. Their prices are all triple Target's, which is a big ripoff -- except that every product that starts with "D" sells for $1. By a straight average of all items, Darget is almost 300% as expensive as Target. Still, at any given time, Darget has twenty times the number of customers in the store, all crowding the aisles buying diamonds and diapers and DVD players. 

When evaluating Darget, the "300%" is irrelevant. Since everyone buys deodorant at Darget, but nobody buys anti-perspirant at Darget, it makes no sense to average the two equally when calculating a Darget price index.

-----

And I suspect that kind of thing is exactly what's happening in CR's statistics. Allstate *looks* more expensive than USAA because, for some demographics of customer, they haven't studied who's less risky than whom. They just don't know. And so, to avoid getting bled dry, they just quote very high prices, knowing they probably won't get very many customers from those demographics.

I don't know which demographics, but, just to choose a fake example, let's say, I dunno, 75-year-olds. USAA knows how to price seniors, how to figure out the difference between the competent ones and the ones whose hands shake and who forget where they are. Allstate, however, can't tell them apart. 

So, USAA quotes the best ones $1,000, and the worst ones $5,000. Allstate doesn't know how to tell the difference, so they have to quote all seniors $5,000, even the good ones. 

What Allstate is really doing is telling the low-risk seniors, "we are not equipped to recognize that you're a safe driver; you'll have to look elsewhere."  But, I'm guessing, the quote system just returns an uncompetitively high price instead of just saying, "no thank you."

----

Under our assumption that customers always comparison shop, it's actually *impossible* to compare prices in a meaningful way. By analogy, consider -- literally -- apples and oranges, at two different supermarkets.

Store A charges $1 an apple,  and $10 an orange.
Store B charges $2 an orange, and  $5 an apple.

Who's cheaper overall? Neither! Everyone buys their apples at Supermarket A, and their oranges at Supermarket B. There's no basis for an apples-to-apples comparison.

We *can* do a comparison if we relax our assumptions. Instead of assuming that everyone comparison shops, let's assume that 10 percent of customers are so naive that they by all their fruit at a single supermarket. (We'll also assume those naive shoppers eat equal numbers of apples and oranges, and that they're equally likely to shop at either store.)

Overall, combining both the savvy and naive customers, Store A sells 100 Apples and 10 Oranges for a total of $200. Store B sells 100 Oranges and 10 Apples for a total of $250.

Does that mean Store B is more expensive than Store A? No, you still can't compare, because store B sells mostly oranges, and store B sells mostly apples.

To get a meaningful measure, you have to consider only the 10 percent of customers who don't comparison shop. At store A, they spend $11 for one of each fruit. At store B, they spend $7 for one of each fruit.

Now, finally, we see that store B is cheaper than store A!

But:

1. To be able to say that, we had to know that the naive customers are evenly split both on the fruit they buy, and the stores they go to. We (and CR) don't know the equivalent statistics in the auto insurance case.

2. If "Store B is cheaper" it's only for those customers who don't shop around. For the 90 percent who always accept only the lowest price, the question still has no answer. CR wants us to be one of those 90 percent, right? So, their comparison is irrelevant if we follow their advice!

3. All CR's analysis tells us is, if we're completely naive customers, getting one quote at random from one insurance company, then blindly accepting it ... well, in that case, we're best off with USAA.

But, wait, even that's not true! It's only true if we're exactly, equally likely to be any one of CR's thousands of representative customers. Which we're not, since they gave ZIP code 10019 in Manhattan (population 42,870) equal weight with ZIP code 99401 in Alaska (population 273).

------

CR's mistake was to weight the quotes equally, even the absurdly high ones. They should have weighted them by how often they'd actually be accepted. Of course, nobody actually has that information, but you could estimate it, or at least try to. One decent proxy might be: consider only quotes that are within a certain (small) percentage of the cheapest. 

Also, you want to weight by the number of drivers in the particular demographic, not treat each ZIP code equally. You don't want to give a thousand 30-year-old Manhattanites the same total weight as the three 80-year-olds in a rural county of Wyoming.

By adjusting for both those factors, CR would be weighting the products by at least a plausible approximation of how often they're actually bought. 

------

Anyway, because of this problem -- and others that I'll get to in a future post -- most of CR's findings wind up almost meaningless. Which is too bad, because it was a two-year project, and they did generate almost a billion quotes in the effort. And, they're not done yet -- they promise to continue their analysis in the coming months. Hopefully, their coming analysis will be more meaningful.



(to be continued)





Labels: ,

20 Comments:

At Friday, August 21, 2015 4:41:00 AM, Blogger Scott Segrin said...

An insurance actuary once explained to me that auto insurance companies can't possibly charge a high enough premium to 16-20yo male drivers to be profitable within that group. Their risk is just too high. But they take on those policies for a loss because a.) they don't want to loose the parents of those drivers who are long-time customers, and b.) hope that those younger drivers someday turn into loyal, long-term customers themselves. But he said this phenomena wreaks havoc on the overall economy of setting prices because they have to make up for those losses in other ways. It makes the equation more complicated than simply risk plus a percentage markup.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 8:45:00 AM, Blogger Brian Burke said...

No disagreement with the analysis, but I can shed some light on USAA. Traditionally it was limited to military officers and their families. Recently, they opened the gates to all military and families. So their demographics are biased by a subset of hyper responsible and conscientious professionals and their offspring.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 12:15:00 PM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

Scott: interesting! I didn't realize that young drivers were SO high risk that insurance companies had to offer loss leaders.

Brian: Thanks, I didn't know that USAA wasn't open to everyone ... seems like something Consumer Reports should have mentioned. That actually WOULD explain how they can be so cheap, at least if the other companies don't have good enough analytics to properly price customers with military service or military families.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 1:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realize you're just giving simplified examples, but why wouldn't every insurance company know all the different risks in all the different groups, more or less?

For example, in the example you gave, you said this:

"Geico quickly figures out that Progressive knows something they don't -- that, somehow, Progressive figured out which teenage customers are lower risk, and stole them all away by undercutting their price. But they don't know how to tell low risk from high risk. They don't know that it has to do with grades. So, Geico can't just follow suit in their own pricing."

How would Geico not know this? All they have to do is apply for insurance at Progressive and when they ask about grades, they would immediately know that good grades means lower insurance.

In fact, this is true for every possible risk category. Every insurance company can easily apply to every other insurance company and for every question they ask, they can answer in all possible ways and see how that affects the premiums. I'll do that for insurance companies if they want, if they'll pay me enough.

So, if it is true that every insurance company knows exactly what the risk amounts are for every possible category, which I think is an excellent assumption, that pretty much puts the kabosh on your theory, no?

Now, if one insurance company declines certain risk categories for whatever reason (like CSAA only allowing military people), then that's a different story and must be accounted for. But the idea that one multi-billion dollar insurance company knows significantly more about risk assessment than another one, when, as I said, they can easily see the how various attributes (age, sex, grades, etc.) affect premiums by simply applying online? I'm not buying it.

MGL

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 1:14:00 PM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

That's true, Geico would figure out grades if they saw Progressive mentioning it. Maybe not the perfect example, but the companies apparently use all kinds of datapoints without telling anyone what they're doing. (Which is one of CR's complaints -- they companies don't publicize their formulas!)

I think of it as the same way teams don't evaluate players the same way, because they have different scouts, and the sample sizes aren't big enough to know things for sure.

Even if they're using different datasets ... maybe Geico thinks Progressive got a false positive, since they didn't find good students doing better enough to be statistically significant, or whatever they use for their decisions.

It's like the stock market -- as long as people have different data, or different opinions, or different priors, you get different prices and estimates for what something is worth.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 2:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, I agree that each company will have slightly different evaluations, but that won't explain vastly different overall premiums though, I don't think. Your example WOULD explain it, but as you admit, your example is not correct. So which is it?

Couldn't it be as simple as each company has different amounts of expenses/overheads based on the philosophy or target customer of each, so that even though company A charges a lot more than company B, they still have the same profit margin? For example, I can open a pet supply store and charge a lot more for my products than Petsmart yet we each still can have the same percentage profit. People go to me rather than Petsmart because perhaps I am closer to where they live, I offer more friendly service, or what have you. And I have to charge more because I can't get my products at the same discount as the big companies get them, among other reasons.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 4:01:00 PM, Blogger mettle said...

Hey Phil,

This was awesome. One of your best thought-through pieces because it obvious doesn't just apply to Consumer Reports, but to a large number (most?) of comparisons in the media. In fact, it reminds me a bit of Simpson's paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox). Perhaps worth thinking about the relationship to that.

A next step would be thinking through calculating average price weighted by consumer usage. Is that meaningful to the consumer? Is that meaningful to the business, e.g., shareholders?

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 4:33:00 PM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

MGL,

1. Yes, it's possible that different overhead costs account for some of the differences, but not enough (IMO) to cause such huge discrepancies between companies. But, feel free to convince me!

2. Brian points out that USAA is only available to US military families. It's possible that CR didn't realize that. It's possible that USAA is low because military personnel are better risks, and that CR didn't specify, when asking for (say) Allstate quotes, that the policyholder was affiliated with the military.

If so, that would make your argument much more plausible, to me, since the differences between the other four companies are much narrower than the USAA case.

3. If your hypothesis is correct, that the differences are mostly overhead, you'd expect the cheaper companies to be *consistently* cheaper than the others, just like Walmart is consistently cheaper than Sears, probably.

That suggests a way to test the hypothesis. Count how often State Farm is cheaper than Allstate. If it's 85%, that suggests a factor affecting all policyholders, as you suggest. If it's 51%, that suggests that it's more a matter of risk evaluation.

4. This is going to sound like I'm lying, but ... after the first post went up, a blog reader wrote me that he got two auto quotes recently, and there was more than a 20% difference between them. He also reported that the higher quote came from a company that CR said was cheaper than the company that gave him the lower quote. At the very least, THAT CASE must be risk evaluation rather than overhead. (I hope the reader isn't mad at me for mentioning his experience ... I deliberately kept the details very vague.)

5. That same day, I went online and got quotes for myself. It's Canadian companies, so not the same, but ... IIRC, I had one big bank insurer offer me a premium 10% less than another. Both are huge banks, two of Canada's big five. So, that can't be overhead. It could still be that one of them is trying to position themselves as the "discount" insurer, so your explanation could still be correct.

6. CR says some companies rely on obscure stuff in credit records, like which cable company you subscribe to. If that's the case, then calling insurance companies and getting quotes will only be useful if they all see your credit report. This doesn't explain CR's finding, though, because they DIDN'T get a full credit report. I'm just mentioning it as a possible example of how Company A might not be able to figure out Company B's criteria.

7. My argument relies not so much on companies disagreeing about actual risk, but on some companies NOT BOTHERING to figure out the risk (and offering too-high "covering their ass" quotes by default). I suspect that, for the most-studied demographic groups -- say, two couples, steady jobs, two kids, minivan, suburban house near a big city, picket fence, dog -- the companies will have come to the same evaluations, and will be offering very similar premiums. I think it's the 'weird' cases in which companies will vary a lot. Every company knows Ozzie Smith is an awesome fielder, but only some companies know that Derek Jeter's defense is highly overrated.

In other words: I agree with you that most of the difference between Allstate and USAA is *not* that they evaluate risk drastically differently, in general. Where we disagree: you think differences in quotes mostly overhead, and I think it's companies being forced to offer overly conseravative (i.e., high) quotes where they don't have enough data (or expertise) to be able to evaluate the risk within the required margin.



 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 4:34:00 PM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

For 5., it could also be that I entered my information differently for the two banks. So, never mind that one for now.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 4:50:00 PM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

Mettle,

Yeah, I thought of Simpson's Paradox too. I don't think it's quite the same thing, but it's close!

If you weighted by consumer usage -- especially if you somehow limited it to people who shopped around at least a little bit -- I bet you'd get a pretty good estimate of which companies consumers think are worth more money, and which ones aren't. Because, why would someone pay Allstate $1000 (say) for the same coverage he could get from Progressive for $985? Either he thinks Allstate is better on service/claims, or he thinks Flo is creepy, or he thinks the Allstate guy with the deep voice is cool (or hot).

While writing that, I just had a thought: can't you figure out which companies are cheapest *just by their profit margins*? If expenses are similar, then the ones that pay out more of their premiums must, by definition, be providing more value to their clients. Of course, some of those clients include fraudsters.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 6:51:00 PM, Anonymous CDIAL said...

Expenses aren't necessarily similar. That is, costs may be similar (direct and indirect), but inefficiencies cannot be assumed to be similar. I see this every week.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 10:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) It's my understanding that you don't have to be, or have been, in the military to obtain USAA insurance if you have a parent who was.

2) It's my understanding that GEICO stands for Government Employee Insurance Company [or Cooperative], which is what it was when it began. Though now open to all, that history may have something to do with its current rate structure.

3) From talking to friends in the insurance business, and in the personal injury lawyering business, both plaintive and defense, the most important consideration in picking an insurer is choosing one to whom you don't have to hold a gun to their head to get them to PAY A CLAIM; not one that charges the least premium.

4) The insurers you mention have all been around a long time. It's my guess there is very little their actuaries don't know, and very few secrets between them. However, some have better reputations than others in paying claims.

 
At Friday, August 21, 2015 11:05:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...I think it's companies being forced to offer overly conseravative (i.e., high) quotes where they don't have enough data (or expertise) to be able to evaluate the risk within the required margin."

Or they flat just don't want to take that customer on as a risk, at least as a risk at a lower premium.

 
At Saturday, August 22, 2015 2:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil, I was only suggesting the overhead thing as a possible (one of several) explanation. I really don't know. I do think that your hypothesis, which is the basis for your thesis I think, that some companies simply don't do a good job in assessing risk, is false. At least I have a hard time believing that it is true. I think there are many other plausible alternatives, such as overhead, or the type of customer service, as several people have mentioned. If I am a company that often turns down customer claims, I can afford to charge less. If I am very customer friendly, and basically accept virtually any claim without question (seemed to me that AAA was like that when I used them), then I have to charge more. There are probably many other things like that which affect average price besides some companies being significantly better than others at assessing risk among the various groups of people. I basically agree with the following comment from a poster above:

"The insurers you mention have all been around a long time. It's my guess there is very little their actuaries don't know, and very few secrets between them."

 
At Saturday, August 22, 2015 11:34:00 AM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

"The insurers you mention have all been around a long time. It's my guess there is very little their actuaries don't know, and very few secrets between them."

Fair enough. The more I consider that comment, the less comfortable I am disagreeing with it. It sounds like that must be so ... an actuary at Aetna figures something out, and Aetna implements it, and then he leaves to go to The Hartford, and ... the secret spreads.

Also, the basics of risk analysis are public ... there are universities, and MBA programs, and textbooks. Everyone knows about DIPS these days ... so, everyone must also know that good students are better risks than poor students.

But then, why would some companies charge as much as 20% less than others, routinely? For "normal" risks? There have been a few suggestions -- loss leaders, overhead, marketing. Maybe there are regional considerations: they're less staffed in Montana than New York, so they can't afford to take on customers if that might lead to lengthy claims investigations where they have to fly people out. Who knows?

A commenter above wrote,

"Or they flat just don't want to take that customer on as a risk, at least as a risk at a lower premium."

That's what I said, except that I suggested it was because they didn't know how to evaluate the risk. The commenter is saying, maybe it's for OTHER reasons they don't want the business. Sure, that's quite possible, and fits my argument -- I'm just arguing that for some drivers, some insurers don't really want the business, except at a prohibitively high relative price.

So, sure, I'll reduce my prior estimate of how much is due to uncertainty about the true risk. But I'm still not completely convinced. Insurance companies can't know EVERYTHING; there's some limit, and where that limit applies is different for each company and each customer type (or even each customer individually!). The question is: how big are the differences?

Here's a hypothetical, tell me if you think it's plausible.

Zip code XXXXX shows average risk for all groups. But, recently, Geico processed a particularly expensive claim, where a 20-year-old man got drunk and ran into a neighbor, causing a million dollars worth of medical bills. When processing the claim, the adjuster noted that it was fraternity related, and it's a student neighborhood, and there are many alcohol-related incidents there, and the police are often called.

Geico realizes that the apparent "average" claim history was just lucky, like when Wade Boggs hits .250 some month. So, they bump up the risk for young men in that ZIP code. Progressive, on the other hand, didn't just have a million dollar claim there, and they go on as before.

Does that seem like a plausible series of events that could cause one company to charge significantly more than another?

 
At Saturday, August 22, 2015 11:43:00 AM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

If you don't like that one, consider a general case.

In a certain ZIP code, Progressive's customers cost them 50% above average last decade. Geico's customers cost them only 10% above average. They don't have access to each other's claims, right? They might have police data about accidents, and maybe ambulance or hospital data, but that's about it. So, they evaluate differently.

Geico might figure they should be charging (say) 5% above average, and Progressive figures 20% above average (after regressing to the mean, and other stuff that actuaries know they have to do). If they had each other's data, they'd both be at the same rate.

Does THAT sound plausible?

In baseball, all teams have access to exactly the same data, but they have different opinions on which players are better, perhaps because they have different scouts. So, even with identical information, people differ.

Now, imagine insurance companies. They DON'T all have the same data. So they must disagree more than scouts, right?

There are 30 teams. Imagine that each scout saw Mike Trout only on one day of the month, and they didn't share what they saw. Wouldn't you expect that the teams would vary A LOT on how they evaluated Trout's future?

Like baseball scouts, there is "very little" actuaries don't know, in terms of broad principles by which to evaluate. Both know, for instance, that young players/drivers are different from old players/drivers in what to expect in the future.

But, unlike baseball scouts, actuaries all have different information on specific cases, and past histories. Progressive might have seen older shortstops decline more slowly after age 30 than Allstate observed, and their expectations are therefore slightly different.

 
At Sunday, August 23, 2015 10:20:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil, all of those examples are plausible and make sense. I don't think insurance companies are doing that though.

And if they are, very, very few people who are charged the higher premiums will use that company, so their average premiums are not going to be affected very much unless they choose to charge everyone else less (which they should in order to get more business) in which case their average premium will be less not more.

The whole point of assessing risk as accurately and as granular as possible is to avoid insuring people with whom you make no money (or lose money) or, if they are not discriminating, charge them more, and charge everyone else (the ones who are actually lower risks) less so that you can corner the market on those people.

 
At Monday, August 24, 2015 11:33:00 AM, Blogger Phil Birnbaum said...

"And if they are, very, very few people who are charged the higher premiums will use that company..."

Right! And that's my argument about why CR's calculated average is misleading. Because they give the higher premium the same weight as if people who are offered the higher premiums DID use that company.

 
At Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:03:00 AM, Blogger Jon W. said...

I'm very interested in the insurance methodology. A few months ago I was shopping around for car insurance, while also buying a new car. Here's a seemingly bizarre datapoint for you:

44-year-old male, married, house in suburban MD, insuring a minivan, an old truck, and an 11-year-old Mini Cooper, with Allstate: $1500/six months.

Same, except replacing the Mini with a 1.5-year-old Audi S4, with Progressive: $700/six months.

If you can come up with a scenario where that makes sense...

 
At Thursday, May 05, 2016 12:16:00 AM, Blogger Webb Rowan said...

I don't think competitive car insurances can just be compared like that off the bat. There are so many conditions to each policy that need to be properly scrutinised and comparing plans is never as simple as looking at an apple to another apple. There are vehicle excesses and extra features of the plan that needs to be taken into consideration too!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home