It makes no difference what the activity, when you’re learning something, you make mistakes. On the football field, it makes no difference if you crash into other players. You’re all players together and no innocent members of the public are at risk. But if you apply the same approach to driving, there can be a lot of innocent victims. So insurance companies group all inexperienced drivers together. The younger the driver, the higher the premium. But, as time passes, and you build up a track record of safe driving, the rate comes down. There’s a general policy to review your safety record on a regular basis between 17 and 29. In general, all drivers under the age of 25 pay the highest rates but, assuming no accidents, the rates will slowly scale down. Single males are judged the most dangerous. The statistics show young female drivers are significantly safer.

The rates come down faster if you marry and have children. Now as the owners of vehicles likely to be carrying your family, you are assumed to have a safer approach to driving. Even if you don’t marry, you still earn a lower rate if you’re the owner of the vehicle. It’s assumed you’ll drive your own vehicle more carefully. This leads to a more general point. If parents insure their children, they pay the penalty if there are accidents or convictions. Premium rates are likely to triple or cover may be refused if underage children are caught driving while intoxicated. The same can apply if they are caught for underage drinking even while not driving. The parents are likely to face nonstandard rates or surcharges. Perhaps curiously, DWI/DUI convictions can also affect other home-based policies like those covering a jetboat or snowmobile. These higher rates will stay in place until the child leaves the home and will no longer be a driver of the family cars. This makes it better to encourage younger drivers to take out a policy in their own names. The sooner they learn the cause and effect of financial responsibility the better.

Ever since the Japanese earthquake and following tsunami hit our television screens, there’s been slightly more interest in whether earthquake cover is needed in the US. In other words, there’s a temporary outbreak of paranoia, worrying whether such a disaster could ever happen here. For a few months, people will get quotes and talk to insurance agents about the cost of cover, and then interest will all slowly die down again. Even in the US states at risk, less than 10% of the population carries earthquake cover.

Given that California sits on a major fault line, this may seem surprising. But, when asked why cover is refused, most people come up with an entirely rational reply. If there’s a “big one”, this would not simply cause one home to fall down. This would open cracks in the ground and damage all the major infrastructure of roads, bridges, the cabling and piping that brings essential services to an area, and so. There could not be any rebuilding of individual homes until access was restored and the basic services were reconnected. When you look at the deficits being run by many of the at-risk states, there would be serious delays in accessing federal funds and then commissioning the necessary works. So having earthquake insurance on the homes is not going to be much use for months or, indeed years. In some areas where there are landslides or sections of the land fall into the sea, it might never be possible to rebuild on the same sites. This is not to say pessimism is the right approach. Since earthquake damage is usually excluded from the standard policy, you should ask for quotes and decide whether the cover on offer is affordable.

There’s an increasing disconnect between what the TV ads are saying about the rates for insuring your vehicle and the quotes floating into your inbox. The marketers would have you believe there’s no problem in finding really cheap insurance (but only with their company, of course). Yet the insurance industry itself funds the Insurance Information Institute as a research body. It regularly publishes studies. Mostly, they are uncontroversial. So it came as a surprise when it revealed a steady rise of some 10% in the premium rates between 2008 and 2010. The latest straws in the wind are also suggesting a further rise of some 4% this year. When you consider the rate of inflation has been zero – there has been a recession, after all, and many prices actually fell – it’s a disgrace the insurance industry has been pushing up its prices.

Yet, when a talking head does appear above the parapet to talk for the industry, the message is always the same. The rates are going up because the repair and medical costs have been rising faster than inflation. Indeed, when you look at all the evidence on medical costs, you can believe what these insurance apologists are saying. Then you have to ask yourself about the value of the US dollar. It’s been falling steadily over the last three years. So the cost of all those imported spare parts from foreign manufacturers has also been rising. If these same insurance companies were not announcing increased profits to their stockholders, you would almost feel sorry for them.