GEICO is Terminating Insurance Coverage of Tesla Cybertrucks

I don’t understand why insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose what they cover. If I’m forced by the government to insure my vehicle, then that same government should force the insurance companies to cover everything that is being driven on public roads.

An I missing something here, besides big lobby money working against the consumer?
 
And burns down your house....
Unless the auto insurance policy has some righteous liability coverage, their risk is limited. As always, premiums reflect the risk and coverage limits.

My new 2024 F150 Lariat's full coverage by Allstate is $8K/yr. And, I'm done with them, anytime insurance exceeds 10% of the vehicle's cost, it is too high. Truck OTD mid $60's, about $12K off MSRP + TTT.
 
I don’t understand why insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose what they cover. If I’m forced by the government to insure my vehicle, then that same government should force the insurance companies to cover everything that is being driven on public roads.

An I missing something here, besides big lobby money working against the consumer?
There are minimum insurance requirements if the company chooses to insure a certain line, together with financial reserve requirements. But generally, in the U.S., companies are not forced to insure a product or otherwise undertake a line of business.
 
Be interesting to hear if its across the board or certain jurisdictions.

Tesla has a lot of parts they restrict - some inexplicably - my guess her is that they cant collect a rate that reflects the risk/cost associated with repair.
 
I wonder if the other top insurers will follow suit and not cover the vehicle. It's a pretty strong statement for the 3rd largest (almost tied for 2nd largest) auto insurer of the nation to not want anything to do with the truck. Then again, in all fairness, they may not insure other exotic vehicles. Not part of their business model, maybe there are speciality insurers for those type vehicles. Im certainly not going to knock the insurance company, we are a free country, ya know?
It's not an issue I ever had to deal with. :p
 
I don’t understand why insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose what they cover. If I’m forced by the government to insure my vehicle, then that same government should force the insurance companies to cover everything that is being driven on public roads.

An I missing something here, besides big lobby money working against the consumer?
Yes, you missing the fact that you live in a free country. ;)
Because your state requires insurance doesnt mean private business should be forced to insure you. Not many people will feel sorry for you and your 6 figure vehicle either. BTW - there are many companies that will insure the vehicle and I am sure many specialty companies as well.
 
I don't believe there is any law in existence that requires, or forces an Insurance company to insure any vehicle that is known or has a history for catching fire. What should be done is , not allowing a vehicle that is known for catching fire, to be sold in our country. Or allowed over our borders. Insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for the poor design, or workmanship of the manufacturer. If you own or owned a vehicle that self- incinerated itself, your anger should be directed at the company who made it or sold it to you.,,
 
Yes, you missing the fact that you live in a free country. ;)
Because your state requires insurance doesnt mean private business should be forced to insure you. Not many people will feel sorry for you and your 6 figure vehicle either. BTW - there are companies that will insure the vehicle.

Interesting choice of words. When it comes to the citizen it’s a “requirement” but when it comes to a business it’s “force”.

So a “free country” means it forces me, but cannot force a business?
 
I don’t understand why insurance companies are allowed to pick and choose what they cover. If I’m forced by the government to insure my vehicle, then that same government should force the insurance companies to cover everything that is being driven on public roads.

An I missing something here, besides big lobby money working against the consumer?
Having previously worked in the insurance industry, this is what ran through my mind. Questionable cybertruck build quality aside, you'd think they would just make them outrageously expensive to insure, not just refuse to insure them. Reminds me of all the insurance companies pulling out of Florida for home insurance. Brings a whole new meaning to eliminating risk to their profits.
 
Interesting choice of words. When it comes to the citizen it’s a “requirement” but when it comes to a business it’s “force”.

So a “free country” means it forces me, but cannot force a business?
Respectfully, you are not making any sense. No one, at least not in the US, forces you to undertake a certain job or line of work, nor a sub-speciality within any such jobs or line of work. If you decide you want to do something - let's say dentistry - you have to pass certain requirements to make sure that your are competent and you don't injure people. That's generally how regulation works in the US. We don't force people or businesses to do things in the first instance, but if the person or business choses to do certain things, we try to have rules and requirements to make sure that they are done responsibly - so health care providers don't injure patients, so banks don't lose your money, so cars don't have defects that injure drivers and pedestrians, etc. If Geico doesn't want to insure a certain vehicle, I don't think you are going to find many people who want to force them to do so. The question to me is why would a rational business turn down a line of business - what are they seeing with these trucks that makes them unattractive to insure? Some folks above have offered good hypotheses. What is surprising to me is that they don't continue in the business but at a premium rate that makes it unlikely they will have a business - in other words offer to "insure" the vehicle, but for an annual premium equaling the current value of the vehicle. Pointless true , but then they can avoid any controversy. Kind of like when a car repair shop quotes you a ridiculous price - that is their way of saying that they don't want to deal with the customer, or the customer's car.
 
In a rear end collision, the party that hits you is at fault. Going through their insurance is more direct and less likely to trigger any sort of increase by your insurer.

That’s not a good answer on the cyber truck, with all respect.
Except that half the drivers don't have insurance, or have too little insurance, so now your back to your uninsured / underinsured coverage paying.
 
Having previously worked in the insurance industry, this is what ran through my mind. Questionable cybertruck build quality aside, you'd think they would just make them outrageously expensive to insure, not just refuse to insure them. Reminds me of all the insurance companies pulling out of Florida for home insurance. Brings a whole new meaning to eliminating risk to their profits.
The market is likely too small and the real risk costs unknown / new - they figure its best just to steer clear.

Geico is a really high volume provider. They probably don't see it as a large enough market to make all the trouble worth doing. Same with Florida / California. The re-insurers simply decided they wanted nothing to do with them. They know that not all properties are high risk, but enough are that its not worth the time and effort to sort it out.
 
Respectfully, you are not making any sense. No one, at least not in the US, forces you to undertake a certain job or line of work, nor a sub-speciality within any such jobs or line of work. If you decide you want to do something - let's say dentistry - you have to pass certain requirements to make sure that your are competent and you don't injure people. That's generally how regulation works in the US. We don't force people or businesses to do things in the first instance, but if the person or business choses to do certain things, we try to have rules and requirements to make sure that they are done responsibly - so health care providers don't injure patients, so banks don't lose your money, so cars don't have defects that injure drivers and pedestrians, etc. If Geico doesn't want to insure a certain vehicle, I don't think you are going to find many people who want to force them to do so. The question to me is why would a rational business turn down a line of business - what are they seeing with these trucks that makes them unattractive to insure? Some folks above have offered good hypotheses. What is surprising to me is that they don't continue in the business but at a premium rate that makes it unlikely they will have a business - in other words offer to "insure" the vehicle, but for an annual premium equaling the current value of the vehicle. Pointless true , but then they can avoid any controversy. Kind of like when a car repair shop quotes you a ridiculous price - that is their way of saying that they don't want to deal with the customer, or the customer's car.
We are talking about car insurance not jobs. You cannot legally drive a vehicle without insurance. We are all forced to buy insurance. Why is it such a hard concept to grasp?
 
We are talking about car insurance not jobs. You cannot legally drive a vehicle without insurance. We are all forced to buy insurance. Why is it such a hard concept to grasp?
You cannot force companies or people to undertake a business they don't want to undertake. (Although, today, with the way idiots vote, who knows?). If insurance becomes unavailable for a vehicle, you as a consumer have the ability to purchase a different car that is insurable. In this case, there are many options to insure a vehicle other than Geico, but you would force them to insure it anyway. Makes no sense to anyone who has been engaged in business, but to each his/her own.

Have a good day, we're done.
 
We are talking about car insurance not jobs. You cannot legally drive a vehicle without insurance. We are all forced to buy insurance. Why is it such a hard concept to grasp?
Because, while all state governments regulate insurance companies, they do not as a general rule force them to do things that cause them to lose their (assets) on a particular product.
 
You cannot force companies or people to undertake a business they don't want to undertake. (Although, today, with the way idiots vote, who knows?). If insurance becomes unavailable for a vehicle, you as a consumer have the ability to purchase a different car that is insurable. In this case, there are many options to insure a vehicle other than Geico, but you would force them to insure it anyway. Makes no sense to anyone who has been engaged in business, but to each his/her own.

Have a good day, we're done.
Lol, who forcing Geico to be an insurance company? They choose to be one, so they should be required to insurance all automobiles.

But in your head telling people to go out and buy another vehicle that is insurable makes sense? If so, Geico has the same ability to sell, I don’t know, vacuums, pet rocks, whatever else that will make them money. They are just as free to do something else, as you claim that I am.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
Slightly off-topic, but I was looking at the cost of new vehicles, in general. I called my insurance company and increased my coverage. I mean, what if I accidentally totaled out somebody's $100,000 SUV ? Or two, in a pile up ?
 
Because, while all state governments regulate insurance companies, they do not as a general rule force them to do things that cause them to lose their (assets) on a particular product.
I understand that, but why is it acceptable? If I drive without insurance and get caught, I will 100% loose some of my assets.

My argument is that the whole thing is one sided and designed to extract money from regular people by force. So where is this his “freedom” that was mentioned earlier?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pew
Back
Top Bottom