Additionally, the statement about comprehensive claims not affecting premiums is untrue, because unless they are prevented from doing so by state statute, most companies will in fact increase your premium because of comprehensive claims (or towing, or rental or any of the “not at-fault” claims). The reasoning behind this is that even though they are not at fault claims, the fact that you filed a claim in most cases means you are more likely to file another claim, and therefore are a higher risk deserving of a higher premium.

Finally the credit score issue, which is a very contentious issue. I dont think the reasoning is as simple as people with better credit are more likely to pay for a claim out of pocket. In most cases the insurers arent using an actual credit score, they just have certain credit characteristics as components of their pricing model. Technically you could be a “good” insurance risk but have a “poor” credit score, as it is only some individual credit characteristics that usually matter. Articles like the consumer reports article always try to come up with a causal relationship between credit and likelihood of filing a claim, when there may in fact be no such causal relationship. Bottom line is that certain credit characteristics correlate nicely with likelihood to file a claim, so insurers will use them where permitted to charge a premium more reflective of an individual risk.

Fair? The system works the same way for everyone. Isn’t that the essence of “fair”ness?