Insurance Practices Are Killing Me!: Need Advice on CLUE Reports, Non-Fault Claims, and Premium Hikes
Hi everyone,
I’m reaching out to get your advice and insights on a frustrating and costly situation we’ve been dealing with involving our auto insurance. There are several issues here that I believe highlight systemic problems in the insurance industry, and I’d appreciate any feedback or similar experiences you’ve had.
Background
My spouse and I (ages 42 and 47) have clean driving records with no at-fault accidents EVER and no traffic violations in the past 3 years. For over 7 years, we’ve had auto, home, and umbrella insurance with Farmers.
For the last two years, we insured a 2022 Ford Mach-E with Farmers. As of our last renewal, our monthly premium was $300 for one vehicle. However, after trading in the Mach-E for a 2024 Acura ZDX and shopping around for new quotes, State Farm quoted us $560/month for a single vehicle—nearly double what we were paying with Farmers and three times our car payment!
When I pressed for an explanation, I uncovered several issues tied to claims we’ve made in the past, even though none of them were our fault. Here are the details:
- October Non-Fault Accident
In October, we were rear-ended while stopped at a red light. Farmers, our insurer at the time, suggested that we file the claim with them instead of the at-fault driver’s insurer, claiming it would resolve faster. We followed their advice, paid our deductible, and were later reimbursed when Farmers settled with the other party’s insurer.
However, Farmers reported this claim to LexisNexis’ CLUE database, and now it’s impacting our insurance quotes. If we had filed directly with the at-fault driver’s insurer, it’s likely this claim wouldn’t appear on our record. We were never informed of the long-term consequences of filing with Farmers, and now we’re paying for that decision.
- Comprehensive Claims Penalized
We’ve paid extra for windshield coverage, which includes repairs for chips and cracks. Farmers actively encourages filing claims for chip repairs early to prevent them from spreading and causing further damage.
When we received the $560/month quote from State Farm, the agent specifically mentioned the number of windshield claims on our record as a reason for the higher rates. I was shocked to learn that filing these claims, despite being fully covered and unrelated to fault, had such a negative impact.
Here’s the predatory part:
• Arizona law prohibits insurers from increasing premiums for non-fault accidents (A.R.S. § 20-263).
• However, insurers like State Farm are circumventing this law by focusing on the number of claims, rather than fault. By saying, “Fault isn’t the factor here,” they can effectively penalize policyholders for non-fault claims while appearing to comply with the law.
• All of our claims have been no-fault, yet our rates have skyrocketed. This practice feels predatory because it punishes victims and responsible drivers for using the insurance benefits they’ve paid for.
Additionally, when I questioned Farmers about this today, they claimed that Arizona recently changed its laws to allow insurers to use comprehensive claims (like windshield repairs) to calculate premiums. This has turned what was marketed as a protective benefit into a financial trap—completely negating any value of the coverage.
- Diminished Value
When we traded in our Mach-E, we received $21,200, far below the Kelley Blue Book value. The dealership told us the car’s diminished value was due to the October accident being reported, even though the damage was fully repaired. Farmers never informed us about pursuing a diminished value claim, leaving us to absorb this financial loss.
- State Farm’s Questionable Practices
When we called State Farm for a quote, they accessed our LexisNexis CLUE report without our knowledge or authorization. I wasn’t informed this would happen during the phone call, and I feel blindsided.
Additionally, a State Farm agent I know personally told me that they lure customers in with low introductory rates and then raise premiums significantly at renewal. This “bait-and-switch” strategy seems designed to trap customers who don’t shop around.
- Broader Concerns
These practices feel like a systemic problem:
• Penalizing Non-Fault Victims: By using claims volume instead of fault to assess risk, insurers are unfairly penalizing responsible drivers.
• Eroding Trust: Comprehensive coverage (e.g., for windshields) is marketed as a benefit, but filing a claim ends up costing more in the long run due to rate hikes.
• Implied Consent Issues: I don’t understand how State Farm can justify accessing my CLUE report over the phone without any explicit authorization or disclosure.
What I Need Help With
I’d like to hear your thoughts or advice on the following:
-
How can I address the unfair use of non-fault and comprehensive claims in my insurance quotes? Are there specific insurers that handle these issues more fairly?
-
What steps can I take to dispute or correct my CLUE report? I’ve requested it from LexisNexis but haven’t reviewed it yet.
-
Has anyone successfully filed a diminished value claim after the fact? Is it worth pursuing with the at-fault driver’s insurer?
-
Are there legal or regulatory options for challenging these practices? I’m considering filing complaints with the Arizona Department of Insurance and the CFPB, but I’m open to other suggestions.
-
What insurers would you recommend for fair treatment of clean drivers with non-fault claims?
I appreciate any advice, feedback, or shared experiences you can provide. This situation feels like a lose-lose, and I want to find a way to push back against these unfair practices.
Thank you!