Posted by Benji Riggins on September 8, 2010 under Safety | 
Victims of identity theft are most often targeted via burglary, stolen wallets and pilfered identifications, according to a new survey on identity fraud.
In some 76 percent of all cases of identity fraud reported by Travelers customers, burglary, stolen wallets and stolen identifications top the list of the most common known causes, according to a study of Travelers’ 2009 claims data.
The findings mirror last year’s report on Travelers’ 2008 claims data which indicated that the majority of identity fraud cases reported by customers were from burglaries and stolen wallets. The data reveals how thieves still prefer more low-tech means of identity fraud over online-related thefts and data breaches that typically receive significant media attention.
“This study suggests once again that more traditional means of identity fraud are prevalent today and continue to pose significant risks to consumers,” said Joe Reynolds, Identity Fraud Product Manager for Travelers. “Knowing this, it is critical that consumers take steps to protect themselves and their property.”
Travelers identified the following as the top known causes of identity fraud for its customers:
76 percent – burglary and theft of wallet/purse/personal identification/computer
9 percent – online or data breach
9 percent – forgery
6 percent – change of address/postal fraud
The study also found that 74 percent of the time criminals use the stolen personal information to open new credit card accounts or use the existing credit cards to make charges. Of that 74 percent, 26 percent of identity thieves access existing credit/debit cards, 21 percent open new cards and make charges in the victim’s name, and 18 percent access and withdraw funds from existing checking, savings and online retail accounts.
A study by Javelin Strategy & Research showed that the number of identity fraud victims jumped by 12 percent to 11.1 million adults in 2009, the biggest increase since the survey began in 2003.
“Identity fraud is a crime that can happen to anyone, anywhere, and so it’s particularly important for people to exercise diligence in protecting their personal information,” noted Reynolds.
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/08/24/112692.htm#ixzz0xdXYSKke
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 3, 2010 under Claims |
Property/casualty insurance companies are reporting that the number of claims requiring more scrutiny than normal rose again in the first half of this year compared to 2009.
The National Insurance Crime Bureau’s first half 2010 questionable claims (QC) report examines six referral reason categories of claims— property, casualty, commercial, workers’ compensation, vehicle and miscellaneous.
Overall there was a 14 percent increase in QCs in four of the six categories in 2010 when compared to the first half of 2009. These are claims that NICB member insurance companies refer to NICB for closer review and investigation based on one or more indicators of possible fraud. A single claim may contain up to seven referral reasons.
Of note were the 107 percent increase in questionable hail damage claims and 527 percent increase in questionable auto glass claims so far this year when compared to the first half of 2009.
“Hail loss claims and QCs are generally concentrated in the central section of the U.S. However, seven of the top 10 states with the highest hail loss QC-to-claim ratio are not in the central section. This suggests that fraudulent hail losses can occur in any part of the country,” the report notes.
“While there have been modest declines within a few categories of referrals, the 14 percent increase in the overall number of questionable claims for 2010 raises concerns,” said Joe Wehrle, NICB’s president and chief executive officer.
Wehrle said NICB, its member insurers and law enforcement have pursued suspected unscrupulous roofing companies that take advantage of storms to fake or deliberately cause damage to roofs in an effort to get insurers to pay for a replacement roof that wasn’t damaged by a storm. They have also been putting pressure on staged accident rings in various regions including Tampa, where this has become a major problem.
“We’re seeing concern from our members about criminal rings that are deliberately damaging vehicle windshields in order to file an insurance claim, and in some cases are not doing satisfactory repairs or replacements,” Wehrle said.
NICB is supported by nearly 1,100 property and casualty insurance companies and self-insured organizations.
Source: National Insurance Crime Bureau
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/08/02/112084.htm#ixzz0vTYP12p7
Posted by Benji Riggins on September 1, 2010 under Interesting Info |
It’s tough being a thief. So much booty to carry around, so many cops to evade. Needless to say, trying to pick the right vehicle for the job while keeping in mind it’s resale value on the black market is almost as challenging as stealing one.
The Highway Loss Data Institute of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released it’s annual list of cars and trucks with the highest claim rates per 1,000 units for theft, covering vehicles that are 1 to 3 years old. If you own one of these, you may want to invest in a good alarm, or let your dog sleep in it.
#5 Chevrolet Avalanche
Chevy’s real-life transformer – the cabin can be opened up to extend the pickup bed inside – may not be the company’s best seller, with only 16,000 sold in 2009, but it’s popular among the sticky fingers crowd with 7.4 per thousand getting ripped-off.
Source: Chevrolet
#4 Dodge Charger
If you were a criminal is there anything else you would drive? The Charger was designed to look menacing, and claims are made on 7.4 per 1,000 of them, while models with the high-performance HEMI V8 engine rank 7th on this list with 7.1 per 1,000. No surprise, it makes a great getaway car. Unfortunately, law enforcement has figured this out, which is why Dodge also makes a police version.
Source: Dodge
#3 Chevrolet Silverado
Just take a look around, the Silverado is one of the most common vehicles on the road. Theft claims are made on 8 out of every 1,000 of the crew cab models. That’s a lot of crime.
Source: Chevrolet
#2 Ford F250 Crew Cab 4X4
You’ve almost got to give someone credit for trying to steal a monster like the heavy duty Ford F250, unfortunately, a lot of people are successful doing it.
Source: Ford
#1 Cadillac Escalade
The Cadillac Escalade almost single-handedly defined the world bling, as applied to automobiles, so it’s no surprise its at the top of this list. Claims are made on no less than 10 of these for every 1,000 on the road, with an average payout of $11,934. And that’s with standard engine immobilizers. According to the HDLI’s Senior Vice President, Kim Hazelbaker,”thieves can still put them on flatbeds and haul them away.”
Makes you wonder how many of those are stolen each year.
Source: Cadillac
Posted by Benji Riggins on August 9, 2010 under Claims |
NU Online News Service, Aug. 2, 3:36 p.m. EDT
Hybrid vehicles overall have higher collision claim frequencies and a 6.5 percent, or $182, higher average claim severity than gas-powered vehicles, according to a Mitchell International Inc. study.
The study, featured in Mitchell’s quarterly publication Industry Trends Report (ITR), also notes that hybrid drivers are significantly more likely to receive traffic tickets than drivers of gas-powered vehicles.
Regarding claim frequency and the higher number of traffic tickets, Greg Horn, vice president of Industry Relations, Mitchell International, reported in ITR that one reason may be where hybrid drivers live. Most live in urban settings, ITR noted, where tickets and accidents are more frequent.
Additionally, he said the profile of hybrid drivers has changed in recent years. As recently as 2008, hybrid purchasers were mostly concerned with their carbon footrint and impact on the environment. “While their politics may have been liberal, their driving habits were conservative, making them a very good risk to insure,” Mr. Horn said in his story.
Since then, hybrids have caught on with drivers interested in cutting fuel expenses. “This shift changed the hybrid driver profile and brought with it a change in the risk profile,” he said.
Mr. Horn, citing rating integrity solutions provider Quality Planning, said Toyota Prius owners received .38 tickets per 100,000 miles driven compared to .23 tickets per 100,000 miles for non-hybrid drivers. He noted that is a 65 percent difference.
Regarding claim severity, Mr. Horn said the higher hybrid numbers even showed when comparing the same car models. The Honda Civic hybrid model, for example, has a 6.9 percent higher severity than the gas-powered model. The Ford Escape hybrid had a 9 percent higher severity than the non-hybrid.
Mr. Horn said the higher severity is partly because of higher mechanical labor charges for hybrids. More mechanical operations, he said, are sublet back to dealerships for completion.
Alternate parts use is also lower for hybrids, Mr. Horn said. Interestingly, he noted, this is seen even for like car models. He said loyalty accounts for this. Hybrid owners, he said, are “one of the most loyal groups” and are more inclined to bring their vehicles to the dealership for repairs.
NU Online News Service, Aug. 2, 3:36 p.m. EDT
Hybrid vehicles overall have higher collision claim frequencies and a 6.5 percent, or $182, higher average claim severity than gas-powered vehicles, according to a Mitchell International Inc. study.
The study, featured in Mitchell’s quarterly publication Industry Trends Report (ITR), also notes that hybrid drivers are significantly more likely to receive traffic tickets than drivers of gas-powered vehicles.
Regarding claim frequency and the higher number of traffic tickets, Greg Horn, vice president of Industry Relations, Mitchell International, reported in ITR that one reason may be where hybrid drivers live. Most live in urban settings, ITR noted, where tickets and accidents are more frequent.
Additionally, he said the profile of hybrid drivers has changed in recent years. As recently as 2008, hybrid purchasers were mostly concerned with their carbon footrint and impact on the environment. “While their politics may have been liberal, their driving habits were conservative, making them a very good risk to insure,” Mr. Horn said in his story.
Since then, hybrids have caught on with drivers interested in cutting fuel expenses. “This shift changed the hybrid driver profile and brought with it a change in the risk profile,” he said.
Mr. Horn, citing rating integrity solutions provider Quality Planning, said Toyota Prius owners received .38 tickets per 100,000 miles driven compared to .23 tickets per 100,000 miles for non-hybrid drivers. He noted that is a 65 percent difference.
Regarding claim severity, Mr. Horn said the higher hybrid numbers even showed when comparing the same car models. The Honda Civic hybrid model, for example, has a 6.9 percent higher severity than the gas-powered model. The Ford Escape hybrid had a 9 percent higher severity than the non-hybrid.
Mr. Horn said the higher severity is partly because of higher mechanical labor charges for hybrids. More mechanical operations, he said, are sublet back to dealerships for completion.
Alternate parts use is also lower for hybrids, Mr. Horn said. Interestingly, he noted, this is seen even for like car models. He said loyalty accounts for this. Hybrid owners, he said, are “one of the most loyal groups” and are more inclined to bring their vehicles to the dealership for repairs.
Posted by Benji Riggins on July 30, 2010 under Insurance News |
A majority of Americans believe that laws allowing people to sue their own auto insurance company for punitive damages, in addition to receiving benefits for their insured claim losses, are not a good idea.
New public opinion survey findings from the Insurance Research Council (IRC) indicate that 26 percent of those surveyed said that allowing such lawsuits was a poor idea, and 31 percent said it was only a fair idea.
A first-party bad-faith lawsuit is one where individuals sue their own insurance company because they believe the company acted in “bad faith” in the settlement of their claim. Only a few states allow individuals to sue their own insurance company in this manner, although several states have recently debated, and rejected, legislation authorizing first-party bad-faith lawsuits.
The survey also asked whether respondents would be willing to pay more for insurance in order to allow first-party bad-faith lawsuits. Forty-seven percent said they were “not at all willing” to pay more and 24 percent said they were “not very willing” to pay more. Even among those who thought that allowing first-party bad-faith lawsuits was a good or an excellent idea, one-half (51 percent) said they were unwilling to pay more for insurance in order to allow the lawsuits.
“These findings indicate a substantial lack of public support for legislation that would generate more lawsuits and higher costs for insurance consumers,” said Elizabeth Sprinkel, senior vice president of the IRC.
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/07/29/112009.htm#ixzz0vBHKxVMN
Posted by Benji Riggins on May 5, 2010 under Insurance News |
This week begins the first phase of a process that will see about 1 million North Carolina policyholders begin to receive refund checks from their auto insurance companies totaling more than $50 million.
The refund distribution is a result of the 2009 auto rate settlement with the insurers’ rating bureau, the North Carolina Rate Bureau (NCRB), that Commissioner Wayne Goodwin signed last July.
“These refund checks represent instances where North Carolina drivers were paying too much for their auto insurance, and I’m glad that these extra premium dollars plus interest will go back into their wallets,” said Goodwin.
The refund distribution will occur in two different waves, the first starting this week and the second starting on Nov. 1.
Refund checks will be mailed to eligible policyholders. According to the settlement language, companies writing only six-month policies and companies writing both six-month and 12-month policies that expire prior to May 1, 2010, should send out refunds May 1 – July 31, 2010. All other refunds should be sent Nov. 1, 2010 to Jan. 31, 2011.
The checks are the result of a dispute between the Department of Insurance and the rate bureau over rates ordered in 2008. During the appeals process, the NCRB implemented an interim 9.4 percent rate increase that went into effect on Jan.1, 2009. In cases where insurance companies charged policyholders more than the rates determined by the 2009 settlement, insurance companies are required by statute to refund the difference between the rates charged and the settled rates, with interest.
The 2009 auto settlement did away with the NCRB’s implemented 9.4 percent 2008 rate increase and denied their 2009 request for an additional 1.4 percent rate increase and included an additional 0.5 percent decrease. Under the settlement, the NCRB may not file changes to auto rates until 2011, which means that the maximum allowable auto rates are locked in until Oct. 1, 2011 at the earliest.
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance nc, auto insurance North Carolina, auto insurance refund, car ins, car insurance nc, car insurance north carolina, car insurance refund, insurance, insurance agency, insurance agent
