Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by bjterry on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:42PM
(#12167382)
They can't do that because other companies will undercut them to gain market share. They could collude to set prices, but that's illegal in the US. Also, some auto insurance companies aren't organized as corporations, such as the Auto Club of Southern California, which is a not-for-profit mutual. They aren't saints, but since they redistribute most of their profits to policyholders, they don't really have much incentive to keep prices high.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by cmdrfred on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:54PM
(#12167482)
> They could collude to set prices, but that's illegal in the US.
Interestingly, that is not true for insurance companies[0], at least at the federal level. They are exempt from a lot of federal law.
>The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15,[1] is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by jedmeyers on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @01:57PM
(#12167508)
Corporations have been doing illegal things for a while now. All you have to do is to share a reasonable part of illegal proceedings with the government - it's called a 'fine'.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by JBReefer on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @02:56PM
(#12167966)
Please don't be edgy and dismissive on HN
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by jedmeyers on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @04:04PM
(#12168383)
I am not edgy, I am pointing out that just if something is 'illegal' it does not mean corporations won't do it.
Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by pyre on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @05:48PM
(#12168971)
The fact that something is illegal means that there is a risk in doing it, and a cost in hiding it. It's not quite the same situation as if colluding were completely legal and above-the-board.