It is difficult to balance those two somewhat competing goals. But on balance, these (current) regulations seem to achieve that.
The evidence shows the reforms are cutting costs and injured workers are being treated fairly and being returned to work. We believe the system should stay the course.
Those factors are weighed appropriately because they're a good predictor of loss.
Insurers use several factors to develop rates that are based on a driver's risk of having a loss. This way one group of policyholders does not subsidize another group.
Insurance companies don't use race as part of their rating criteria. The Consumers Union study is a distraction from the fundamental point that insurance companies should be using data that predicts the likelihood of losses. Territory is a significant predictor.
It's an uninsurable risk. The only people who would buy it are in a flood area, and it would have to carry such a high premium that it would not be practical for anyone to buy it.
