This question was posed to me by a mentor who was giving me advice not to worry so much about what might happen. Which brings me to my topic, car insurance. I heard a report today that there were only 29,000 injuries in the US as a result of a car accident. So, figure if they conservitively, and I mean conservitivly settled for 1m a peice, that is 29b, now in most cases they settle for far less, probably averaging 50k a settlement, including repairs and medical. My question is what is the insurance industry doing with the other 321Billion they take in? Really think about it, for every instance of driving that you have what is the real percentage of accidents? It is statistically insignificant and should not warrant mandetory insurance for safe drivers. They should take those profits and make insurance rates equal to what they need for payouts, which is about $20 a month per driver. BTW, do you need saber tooth tiger insurance?
2007-01-31 05:05:26 · 5 answers · asked by dolphinparty13 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Insurance & Registration
Oh yeah, because insurance companies don't pay any salaries at all for the adjusting of claims, so every dollar paid out is a loss dollar and we just pocket the rest! Our buildings and other operational costs just take care of themselves!!!
50k each settled including property damage on average? I might be helping you prove your point, but that's a very high estimate! The 29,000 injuries are just accidents that resulted in injury. What about claims where there was just property damage- there were probably twice or three times more of those. And what about comprehensive (fire, flood, vandalism, hitting a deer) losses and glass claims (those darn windshields that get cracked!) and single car accidents where collision was paid out? Are you getting the picture?
Insurance is a business too, they're not a non-profit organization. Combine the stuff I just listed with the high cost of fraud, and your math is off a bit. Sorry
2007-01-31 09:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by Chris 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The animal is generally referred to as the saber tooth cat. The term 'tiger' came to be used because the animal is large like its distant tiger cousins. Contrary to popular belief, the saber tooth cat is not the ancestor of modern-day cats. The saber tooth cat died off before evolving. It's feline cousins are the ancestors of the cats we see today. There is some debate as to whether tigers evolved from lions or whether lions evolved from tigers.
2016-05-23 23:04:55 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have a very good idea for a question, but are having trouble formulating what you want to really say.
Ask again.
And by the way -- Newton's law: If something CAN go wrong, it probably WILL go wrong.
2007-01-31 06:25:30 · answer #3 · answered by rob1963man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see you didn't take a course in logic while you were in school. I'd suggest you look into taking one now.
You've essentially asked a "Did you drive to work, or bring your lunch?" question.
2007-01-31 05:12:21 · answer #4 · answered by oklatom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only i f the Geico caveman is not there to help you.
that's not newton's law, it's murphy's law.
2007-01-31 05:11:35 · answer #5 · answered by buddy leight 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋