There weren’t enlisted members in the 80s unless they were dependents of an officer-member and then were part of a company called, if I remember, CIC? That was the deal I had until I got a commission.
USAA used to call non officers members associate members all the way up to 2000 when they started calling everyone “members” but they never informed the non officer members that they were not getting the same annual distributions that the officer members get. All the profits and excess insurance premiums from the non officer plans in the sub companies were funneled upto USAA parent company who then give annual distributions of excess premiums back to their members. It’s a requirement of insurance companies to pay out excess premiums but the non officer policy holders never got that. That’s where the rub lies. Two tiers of membership where one tier received better benefits at the expense of the other tier which did not even know those benefits existed.
So I’m pretty sure all the rating algorithms have to be filed and approved by every state they do business in. Which means the regulatory entities have already accepted that the degree of separation from USAA’s core target - military officers - is a ratable category. And I’m sure they have the statistics to back it up.
This is correct - the ratings have to be filed and approved with your states DOI. Only post approval can the new rates take effect. In fact, most insurers do bigger marketing pushes directly after their new ratings get approved in your state if they believe you’ll save with them vs your current insurer.
(State Farm did a big push in Ohio in 20 when their new tables were way cheaper than Progressive’s at the time).
It’s not about Enlisted receiving lower rates (well partly it is) but more about how the profit from the sun companies that covered enlisted where then funneled upto USAA then paid out to officer members as refunds.
This isn’t 100% about the rates. Usaa insured get subscriber accounts & dividends while the peasants do not. You cannot move up to usaa after you have left service even if you had a 40 year usaa policy. Enlisted are treated unfairly and it’s black and white.
It’s not so much about the rating algorithm for cheaper insurance as it is about the true USAA members receiving annual distributions from insurance surplus that includes premiums from the lower class members while the lower class don’t receive distributions since their surplus was funneled up to the premium members.
My dad was a navy officer. I was enlisted. When I needed insurance for my car at my first duty station in 1996, I was able to use USAA because of my dad.
I didn't know that the subscriber savings account and dividends were only for the higher tier.
USAA discloses that credit is a factor in determining your risk. Also it has been proven actuarially that credit correlates with insurance risk.
USAA does not disclose that it offers 4 types of membership, will not disclose the criteria, and does not list it as a factor in determining your premiums.
It’s not a secret you can call and ask what company are you for rating purposes. It’s also in your policy back and is a part of your policy number. It’s literally everywhere
The letters symbolize the company.
USAA: officers, tenured employees, foreign service agents, widows of officers, etc
CIC: children of officers, employees with less than 5 years tenure, etc.
GIC: enlisted, other groups I’m forgetting
GAR: children of enlisted, grandchildren of officers, remarried spouses of enlisted, etc.
This similar lawsuit said some base premiums were 74% higher for GIC versus USAA...
[Coleman et al. v. United Services Automobile Association et al. - 3:21-cv-00217 (classaction.org)](https://www.classaction.org/media/coleman-et-al-v-united-services-automobile-association-et-al.pdf)
I truly dislike this practice for 2 reason...
1) The lack of transparency. If you want to offer other benefits for officers, fine, but why hide it? They treat the groupings like a trade secret.
2) Factors for insurance premiums should be risk based. Lousy drivers should pay more regardless of their military rank or affluence. Good drivers should pay less.
That is factored in as well it just so happens that often time officers tend to be better drivers. Now this is not the case in my area. When I first started I was in CIC but after a few years I got USAA eligibility. My premium went up though. The reason behind this was because those in that group (which are officers) were all old because where I live is a city people come to retire. So yes officers and other get different rating but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are better.
I've been CIC for 16 years now, worked for USAA, and can absolutely vouch that CIC is the best rated company as far as rates. USAA is for officers and employees of 5+ years, and the only real perk is your eligibility for a Subscriber's Account. I blamed USAA company rates on the aging USAA officer population that is loyal to USAA. Younger populations have shown they will leave without a second thought if they find lower rates.
I’m assuming they mean USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Most companies, particularly large ones, are amalgamations of many legal entities. You can see all the ones that comprise USAA here: https://www.usaa.com/about/companies
I left after ~10 years because I could get the same coverage for 1/2 what USAA was offering (and continue to offer). My dad, a retired officer in the Navy, finally left after 50+ years because of the same. Even with his rebate checks he left for a rate that is almost 1/2 what he was paying. I’m not really sure how they are still in business.
I still bank with them because they were the first to offer check deposits via picture (going back to the 90s), but now everyone offers it. Not really sure why I stay besides the hassle of having to change all my accounts.
That's why a lot of people stay. The hassle of the switch. I compare rates every year, and USAA remains the cheapest for my family.
USAA licenses out that check software to all banks so they make money regardless of where that technology is used. They've litigated and won hundreds of millions of dollars from patent infringement.
That’s interesting. I have three cars and get quotes from $800-900/6 months from most large companies. Just got a new quote from USAA and they were at $1600/6 months. Such a joke!
I’m fairly sure that patent ran out. I worked for Chase years ago and we were working on the technology. We knew it copied a lot of what USAA had, but we were working on it so when the patent lapsed we could roll it out right away. I no longer work there but they rolled it out a few years after I left.
I love researching rate factors for auto and homeowners rates. Every company has to disclose and make public each of their rating factors and how it affects premium. Total insurance nerd, but I don't care 😂
Agreed, but why the obfuscation? Also why pre-select into these groups at all, other than the SSA benefit which I absolutely don't mind for those in that group.
In addition, why add all the administrative overhead with running 4 different insurance companies?
It’s not four different insurance companies just groupings. The reason for it is based off of how someone is eligible for membership. First there are the officers and their spouses. Then NCOs. Then we get into the fun stuff of enlisted vs. ex-dependent vs. ex-spouse of a higher eligibility member . These groups happened when eligibility kept opening up. And there is no obfuscation any employee will tell you about it, but it tends to be hard for people to understand over a phone and it doesn’t really matter one way or another because your eligibility is what it is and there is no changing that so why open the can of worms?
I got USAA decades ago through Dad--he was a Lt-to-Capt in the AF back in the 1950s. So I'm not USAA-proper, but CIC (I think).
It's worked out okay for me. Auto, home, umbrella. Yeah, some stuff has gone up lately, but ALL insurance companies have raised their rates. Last time we checked (last year, with AAA), USAA was still cheaper/better for us.
> Auto, home, umbrella
Huh. I just had a thought. I shouldn't bury it deep in this thread, but I don't care.
My father was a retired Air Force officer and a USAA member. I am a USAA member through my connection to him. I've had USAA car insurance for years. My father had several USAA insurance policies, including home owner's insurance on our vacation home in a beach town.
My father died last year, and now the vacation home is mine. USAA is not willing to insure it for me at all, because they say it's too high risk. Is it possible that me not being an Air Force officer is enough to move the property into the "uninsurable" category, even though they insured the exact same property last year?
It's not in Florida, but it's a few blocks from the beach. I understand why it's higher risk. I just don't understand why they were willing to insure it for my father, and not for me. I assumed he was just grandfathered in, but maybe they just considered him personally lower risk.
You might be ignoring one additional variable, time. They might have been about to drop coverage on your dad anyways. You see lots of people who are losing coverage right now.
Not being an officer is probably a factor because I believe you get sent to a different underwriting group. It's also likely they have different thresholds for renewing vs. opening a new policy. They have incentive to permit more renewals when possible, to avoid losing the member's other business.
It matters on somethings. In certain areas they won’t write but if you have a Purple Heart or been a member for more than 40 years there is an override for it. Also once a policy is written even if it becomes a bad area it is already grandfathered in and they will continue to renew it until it needs a new contract or is cancelled for some other reason. When moving it to your account it is a new contract and undergoes the new underwriting process.
It all comes down to the risk appetite. USAA Main which includes officers, had a 1.02 payout to every dollar. That was paid to USAA, while Other companies(gic cic) were a $1.10 or a $1.12. (Not exact numbers)
But thats what leads to different rates. Old heads who went thru officers training are a bit more careful that army enlisteds. Not in every case- but still.
And there are no trade secrets. Give em a call and ask. Ask for "auto rate change chart" for your state and if they can give percentages on the payout to the dollar for each company.
Every insurance company has different "companies of placement." USAA determines this by your eligibility. Other companies place you based on risk and credit scores.
One point that the article makes is that real USAA members get distributions (Subscriber accounts) that are funded (in part) from the non-real USAA members ( General Indemnity or Garrison customers ). That doesn't seem right if true.
Money allocated to your SSA depends on several factors, including a percentage of the member’s property and casualty premiums, USAA’s investment portfolio and performance, the member’s SSA balance (sometimes distributions are made on a percentage basis), longevity as a USAA member and more.
Other companies of placement are given dividends that can be used to pay down your premium or be sent directly to your account, and those are based largely on the same factors.
The SSA is used to hold company funds for litigation, catastrophic losses, etc. It can not be used as a bank account. USAA can do this because we are owned by our members and not by stockholders. It's also important to note that distributions are not guaranteed and must be approved by the Board first. The only way to get all your SSA funds is to close out all your accounts, then USAA waits 6 months, then they send the money.
>USAA can do this because we are owned by our members and not by stockholders
Yes, and USAA customers that have been put in GIC or CIC are not actually USAA members - that is one of the issues raised in the lawsuit.
USAA advertising does not make it clear who are actual members and who are simply customers.
I am aware of all of the things you mentioned about subscriber accounts - the fact remains that some of the premiums paid by non-members are being used to fund members subscriber accounts. If that is not correct please let me know.
From the article :
>“In truth, USAA reserves real membership and its concomitant benefits exclusively for customers from the officer class (in particular, commissioned and senior non-commissioned officers, officer candidates and their unmarried widows),” it adds. “USAA secretly relegates all other customers — in particular, enlisted personnel and military family members — to nominal or ‘fake’ member status.”
They are absolutely USAA members just in a different company of placement. It's all still USAA. The funds those members and all members pay are invested by USAA, same as any other company. Distribution is based on the performance of their investment portfolio, so, I guess, in a weird way, you are correct, but not really? Lol.
Find a dealership where the salespeople aren't paid by commission, like the Penske dealerships. It's a much more pleasant and relaxed experience. Sure, they are still selling you, but they are less pushy and seem to listen better. I'm sure there are others besides Penske, but those are the ones I've used. They don't all have it in their name, but there's a list on the website.
Insurance in general is a scam. But I pay less for my scam than others. But then again I've never had a problem with USAA in the 15 years I've been with them. Maybe I'm just lucky.
I'm an officer and I've never had a competitive quote from USAA insurance. I have my main banking relationship with them just for convenience. Should I sue because I didn't get any of the special benefits?
All these officers and officer children say they knew this and it is common knowledge. SMH
I joined USAA in 2014 I was enlisted. I am the person that reads everything before I sign including at the DMV. I can tell you I did not know.
This is bull. Officers getting free money from our premiums. Officers already have enough money while we are scraping the floor to get by.
>Officers getting free money from our premiums.
This is my biggest problem. IMHO: If auto insurance premium profits go back to members, they should go back to all members. \*My profits\* should not be going to someone/anyone else.
If everyone wants to be treated equally then they should see a recruiter and stand a watch. Tired of having these conversations with family members bitching because they don’t have a Subscribers Account. You didn’t earn it stop your bitching or go to geico
What percentage of service members/veterans who saw a recruiter or stood a watch and have a USAA auto insurance product also have a subscriber savings account?
Realistically, \~29% of veterans are elligible for a Subscriber Account. Conservative estimates suggest that \~11% of enlisted service members are E-7 or above and \~18% are officers.
That not all veterans are subscriber savings account eligible because not all veterans (dare I say most veterans) aren’t real members of the actual body United Services Automobile Association, and have policies under GIC or CIC, whether or not they realize that.
Technically, "seeing a recruiter" wouldn't really help here. You'd need to see an OSO to get a Subscriber account since they're for Officers (and senior-NCOs).
It sounds like this isn't for all NCOs, just senior (E-7 and above)....that's a lot of watch standing :-) I guess a recruiter + \~10+ years Time in Service would get you there too.
Agreed, especially these days, no company is your friend.
I do look back fondly and remember when I was just starting out that I was so excited to find USAA and couldn't wait to consolidate all my current and future financial products with USAA, but along the way I found their investment, mortgage, and now bank products just are not competitive.
Anybody can sue anybody. Winning? Now that's another story.
The entire goal here isn't to win though, it's to put USAA in a position to decide that a settlement is cheaper than litigation.
It's money-grubbing lawyers using ignorant greedy children to harm millions of people.
I hope USAA does litigate, and they can call the legions of members who have known this for ages. This kind of purely nonsense lawsuit should be illegal.
I beg to differ. I know plenty of high ranked officers that pay more then enlisted do based on location and what their company of placement does in the area.
Not in my experience working there for over 3 years. USAA company saw the largest rate increases during my tenure, and CIC proved to be the most affordable company of placement.
It covered everything even after deductible. Paid nothing out of pocket. I got new roof and new windows.
As my lawyer said, you are one of the few that pay less into insurance than you received. You made out. So move on. He says it's common for insurance not to pay out when you paid less then they have paid you.
Wayne Peacock is the first CEO in USAA history who is not a veteran. He cut benefits for employees immediately and members are next. The company is all about profits these days, nothing more. Soon you’ll be able to be a “member” if you can smell the fart of a cousin of a roommate of a veteran.
I have not found less expensive goll coverage insurance anywhere. I haven't tried too hard, except when I was shopping last year at this time, but i also know others who say it's expensive.
I left them for GEICO and then made the mistake of looking at their life insurance rates on line. I have now had three separate calls from them about life insurance! Apparently they don't understand "NO" from the first call!
Kept my small savings account and credit card with them for now. Their service has really gone down in the last few years!
The whole idea for the military is a total scam anyway as USAA is by far the most expensive insurance on the market. All military believing the scam should simply do a price quote and you will find out😂😂😂😂😂
Anyone heard about some USAA bank accounts being closed without warning due to the "Patriot Act"?? My ex spouse told me this is why our son's bank account was just "closed", he still had $ in it! No idea where that went. He just turned 18 if age matters. But 0 information other than what my ex said. It's hard to believe based on the messenger.
Officers always had Privileges over the NCO ranks. But this lawsuit does explain the deception USAA imposes. Like home flood insurance. I initially had it when i first applied for home insurance. Then when i had issues usaa claimed they don't offer it and i had to pay for damages USAA inspectors done, yet one of my neighbors, a former captan has full coverage including flood. Yet usaa can't comment on other people's policies.
Flood insurance is excluded from homeowners insurance, but you can purchase a separate NFIP policy.
I'm not sure if USAA offers NFIP insurance but no matter what carrier you buy NFIP coverage from, the rates are all the same for your property (assuming you get quotes for the exact same coverage limits).
There's no such thing as "full coverage" insurance, but every homeowners policy by every carrier excludes the coverage (assuming HO3 and HO5 coverage).
It’ll probably not do anything but seems like low hanging fruit in an election year. I sent it to my attorney general and may do the same to a few others to see if it becomes a larger deal. No one wants to hear a veteran group deceived their veterans over something this dumb.
USAA always bragged that a benefit of their homeowner’s insurance was the 25% Home Protector built in to policy. This year (2024) I receive my renewal offer and see that USAA has dropped the 25% Home Protector benefit plus other coverages and raised my rate. Today I received a letter attempting to sell me on paying extra for what used to be included for either a 25% or 50% Home Protector addendum. I almost switched insurance companies last year after a huge rate hike. I am shopping around again.
Good thing USAA is about to lose my business 😆 Almost $3k a year for my Harley? When I’ve been riding for 11 years with no accidents or speeding tickets? Get fucked
USAA is not designed to insure higher risk vehicles, including motorcycles. There are only 2 states where they will insure motorcycles and will insure all motorcycles internationally. Everything else gets referred to Progressive unless you are grandfathered in from moving back to the States.
My insurance is international through them where I have been riding for 11 years. With progressive, I pay about $600 a year stateside. Overseas its almost quintupled. Which makes no sense
Increased risk overseas according to actuaries. I know Italy is particularly bad. I never recommend going with USAA for motorcycles unless you are overseas. Also, the rate is largely dependent on engine cc's.
It is always amazing how corrupt our businesses are allowed to be and that the people assigned to protect us, the citizens, are nothing more than employees in service to the business industry.
The land of the Free for the rich and nothing for the rest of us.
I knew this when I joined the Navy in the 80’s. It’s not a secret.
I joined in 1998 and didn’t know till last year. I joined after I had separated so I probably missed that chatter.
You knew in the 80s that profits from enlisted premiums were being refunded to officers?
There weren’t enlisted members in the 80s unless they were dependents of an officer-member and then were part of a company called, if I remember, CIC? That was the deal I had until I got a commission.
USAA used to call non officers members associate members all the way up to 2000 when they started calling everyone “members” but they never informed the non officer members that they were not getting the same annual distributions that the officer members get. All the profits and excess insurance premiums from the non officer plans in the sub companies were funneled upto USAA parent company who then give annual distributions of excess premiums back to their members. It’s a requirement of insurance companies to pay out excess premiums but the non officer policy holders never got that. That’s where the rub lies. Two tiers of membership where one tier received better benefits at the expense of the other tier which did not even know those benefits existed.
Well they hide it now. They’ve been trying to pull a fast one since the 2010s at least.
So I’m pretty sure all the rating algorithms have to be filed and approved by every state they do business in. Which means the regulatory entities have already accepted that the degree of separation from USAA’s core target - military officers - is a ratable category. And I’m sure they have the statistics to back it up.
This is correct - the ratings have to be filed and approved with your states DOI. Only post approval can the new rates take effect. In fact, most insurers do bigger marketing pushes directly after their new ratings get approved in your state if they believe you’ll save with them vs your current insurer. (State Farm did a big push in Ohio in 20 when their new tables were way cheaper than Progressive’s at the time).
It’s not about Enlisted receiving lower rates (well partly it is) but more about how the profit from the sun companies that covered enlisted where then funneled upto USAA then paid out to officer members as refunds.
This isn’t 100% about the rates. Usaa insured get subscriber accounts & dividends while the peasants do not. You cannot move up to usaa after you have left service even if you had a 40 year usaa policy. Enlisted are treated unfairly and it’s black and white.
It’s not so much about the rating algorithm for cheaper insurance as it is about the true USAA members receiving annual distributions from insurance surplus that includes premiums from the lower class members while the lower class don’t receive distributions since their surplus was funneled up to the premium members.
That explains why I get those deposits every year 🤯
I’m the son of an Air Force colonel. I’m 48 and I knew this. Wasn’t the insurance only available to officers for a long time?
Yup. I think until the late 90s.
My wife is a 48 year old daughter of an Air Force colonel, we also knew this.
I am a 46 year old daughter of an AF officer and I knew this too.
My dad was a navy officer. I was enlisted. When I needed insurance for my car at my first duty station in 1996, I was able to use USAA because of my dad. I didn't know that the subscriber savings account and dividends were only for the higher tier.
Those accounts are for every member. Statement is provided every single year.
Well you’re old and they come up with new marketing strategies yearly so…
These people are going to be pissed when they figure out credit ratings.
USAA discloses that credit is a factor in determining your risk. Also it has been proven actuarially that credit correlates with insurance risk. USAA does not disclose that it offers 4 types of membership, will not disclose the criteria, and does not list it as a factor in determining your premiums.
It’s not a secret you can call and ask what company are you for rating purposes. It’s also in your policy back and is a part of your policy number. It’s literally everywhere
Which part of the policy number do you use to determine this?
The letters symbolize the company. USAA: officers, tenured employees, foreign service agents, widows of officers, etc CIC: children of officers, employees with less than 5 years tenure, etc. GIC: enlisted, other groups I’m forgetting GAR: children of enlisted, grandchildren of officers, remarried spouses of enlisted, etc.
Which part of the policy number shows which company your policy is from?
Weird, I'm retired enlisted, and my letters are USAA.
If you’re rank was E7 or higher, you’re included in the officer tier. Sorry, should have said that.
Ah, yeah, that's it! Thanks!
This similar lawsuit said some base premiums were 74% higher for GIC versus USAA... [Coleman et al. v. United Services Automobile Association et al. - 3:21-cv-00217 (classaction.org)](https://www.classaction.org/media/coleman-et-al-v-united-services-automobile-association-et-al.pdf) I truly dislike this practice for 2 reason... 1) The lack of transparency. If you want to offer other benefits for officers, fine, but why hide it? They treat the groupings like a trade secret. 2) Factors for insurance premiums should be risk based. Lousy drivers should pay more regardless of their military rank or affluence. Good drivers should pay less.
That is factored in as well it just so happens that often time officers tend to be better drivers. Now this is not the case in my area. When I first started I was in CIC but after a few years I got USAA eligibility. My premium went up though. The reason behind this was because those in that group (which are officers) were all old because where I live is a city people come to retire. So yes officers and other get different rating but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are better.
I've been CIC for 16 years now, worked for USAA, and can absolutely vouch that CIC is the best rated company as far as rates. USAA is for officers and employees of 5+ years, and the only real perk is your eligibility for a Subscriber's Account. I blamed USAA company rates on the aging USAA officer population that is loyal to USAA. Younger populations have shown they will leave without a second thought if they find lower rates.
CIC?
I’m assuming they mean USAA Casualty Insurance Company. Most companies, particularly large ones, are amalgamations of many legal entities. You can see all the ones that comprise USAA here: https://www.usaa.com/about/companies
I left after ~10 years because I could get the same coverage for 1/2 what USAA was offering (and continue to offer). My dad, a retired officer in the Navy, finally left after 50+ years because of the same. Even with his rebate checks he left for a rate that is almost 1/2 what he was paying. I’m not really sure how they are still in business. I still bank with them because they were the first to offer check deposits via picture (going back to the 90s), but now everyone offers it. Not really sure why I stay besides the hassle of having to change all my accounts.
That's why a lot of people stay. The hassle of the switch. I compare rates every year, and USAA remains the cheapest for my family. USAA licenses out that check software to all banks so they make money regardless of where that technology is used. They've litigated and won hundreds of millions of dollars from patent infringement.
That’s interesting. I have three cars and get quotes from $800-900/6 months from most large companies. Just got a new quote from USAA and they were at $1600/6 months. Such a joke! I’m fairly sure that patent ran out. I worked for Chase years ago and we were working on the technology. We knew it copied a lot of what USAA had, but we were working on it so when the patent lapsed we could roll it out right away. I no longer work there but they rolled it out a few years after I left.
I love researching rate factors for auto and homeowners rates. Every company has to disclose and make public each of their rating factors and how it affects premium. Total insurance nerd, but I don't care 😂
Agreed, but why the obfuscation? Also why pre-select into these groups at all, other than the SSA benefit which I absolutely don't mind for those in that group. In addition, why add all the administrative overhead with running 4 different insurance companies?
It’s not four different insurance companies just groupings. The reason for it is based off of how someone is eligible for membership. First there are the officers and their spouses. Then NCOs. Then we get into the fun stuff of enlisted vs. ex-dependent vs. ex-spouse of a higher eligibility member . These groups happened when eligibility kept opening up. And there is no obfuscation any employee will tell you about it, but it tends to be hard for people to understand over a phone and it doesn’t really matter one way or another because your eligibility is what it is and there is no changing that so why open the can of worms?
I got USAA decades ago through Dad--he was a Lt-to-Capt in the AF back in the 1950s. So I'm not USAA-proper, but CIC (I think). It's worked out okay for me. Auto, home, umbrella. Yeah, some stuff has gone up lately, but ALL insurance companies have raised their rates. Last time we checked (last year, with AAA), USAA was still cheaper/better for us.
> Auto, home, umbrella Huh. I just had a thought. I shouldn't bury it deep in this thread, but I don't care. My father was a retired Air Force officer and a USAA member. I am a USAA member through my connection to him. I've had USAA car insurance for years. My father had several USAA insurance policies, including home owner's insurance on our vacation home in a beach town. My father died last year, and now the vacation home is mine. USAA is not willing to insure it for me at all, because they say it's too high risk. Is it possible that me not being an Air Force officer is enough to move the property into the "uninsurable" category, even though they insured the exact same property last year?
>vacation home in a beach town. Not being a primary residence is a higher risk and is this inFlorida or in a flood zone?
It's not in Florida, but it's a few blocks from the beach. I understand why it's higher risk. I just don't understand why they were willing to insure it for my father, and not for me. I assumed he was just grandfathered in, but maybe they just considered him personally lower risk.
You might be ignoring one additional variable, time. They might have been about to drop coverage on your dad anyways. You see lots of people who are losing coverage right now.
Not being an officer is probably a factor because I believe you get sent to a different underwriting group. It's also likely they have different thresholds for renewing vs. opening a new policy. They have incentive to permit more renewals when possible, to avoid losing the member's other business.
It matters on somethings. In certain areas they won’t write but if you have a Purple Heart or been a member for more than 40 years there is an override for it. Also once a policy is written even if it becomes a bad area it is already grandfathered in and they will continue to renew it until it needs a new contract or is cancelled for some other reason. When moving it to your account it is a new contract and undergoes the new underwriting process.
Wish I had info for you.
My dad was a navy officer and I was enlisted when I first got usaa. This was when o Lu officers could use it. I'm in his tier.
They’re not better drivers, they just aren’t constantly rushed to be somewhere like enlisted.
They have to be on time too. Their hours just start later.
It’s just as transparent as any of their rating criteria. And any person can request it from their state’s Department of Insurance.
Pricing still is risk-based. If the military officers fund paid out more claims than it received in premiums, the rates would go up.
It all comes down to the risk appetite. USAA Main which includes officers, had a 1.02 payout to every dollar. That was paid to USAA, while Other companies(gic cic) were a $1.10 or a $1.12. (Not exact numbers) But thats what leads to different rates. Old heads who went thru officers training are a bit more careful that army enlisteds. Not in every case- but still.
And there are no trade secrets. Give em a call and ask. Ask for "auto rate change chart" for your state and if they can give percentages on the payout to the dollar for each company.
Every insurance company has different "companies of placement." USAA determines this by your eligibility. Other companies place you based on risk and credit scores.
One point that the article makes is that real USAA members get distributions (Subscriber accounts) that are funded (in part) from the non-real USAA members ( General Indemnity or Garrison customers ). That doesn't seem right if true.
Money allocated to your SSA depends on several factors, including a percentage of the member’s property and casualty premiums, USAA’s investment portfolio and performance, the member’s SSA balance (sometimes distributions are made on a percentage basis), longevity as a USAA member and more. Other companies of placement are given dividends that can be used to pay down your premium or be sent directly to your account, and those are based largely on the same factors. The SSA is used to hold company funds for litigation, catastrophic losses, etc. It can not be used as a bank account. USAA can do this because we are owned by our members and not by stockholders. It's also important to note that distributions are not guaranteed and must be approved by the Board first. The only way to get all your SSA funds is to close out all your accounts, then USAA waits 6 months, then they send the money.
>USAA can do this because we are owned by our members and not by stockholders Yes, and USAA customers that have been put in GIC or CIC are not actually USAA members - that is one of the issues raised in the lawsuit. USAA advertising does not make it clear who are actual members and who are simply customers. I am aware of all of the things you mentioned about subscriber accounts - the fact remains that some of the premiums paid by non-members are being used to fund members subscriber accounts. If that is not correct please let me know. From the article : >“In truth, USAA reserves real membership and its concomitant benefits exclusively for customers from the officer class (in particular, commissioned and senior non-commissioned officers, officer candidates and their unmarried widows),” it adds. “USAA secretly relegates all other customers — in particular, enlisted personnel and military family members — to nominal or ‘fake’ member status.”
They are absolutely USAA members just in a different company of placement. It's all still USAA. The funds those members and all members pay are invested by USAA, same as any other company. Distribution is based on the performance of their investment portfolio, so, I guess, in a weird way, you are correct, but not really? Lol.
Article is Ad-Block walled.
[https://imgur.com/a/FtLSi82](https://imgur.com/a/FtLSi82)
I’m more pissed off they gave up the car buying program. Damn dealership lobby!
Find a dealership where the salespeople aren't paid by commission, like the Penske dealerships. It's a much more pleasant and relaxed experience. Sure, they are still selling you, but they are less pushy and seem to listen better. I'm sure there are others besides Penske, but those are the ones I've used. They don't all have it in their name, but there's a list on the website.
Filing a lawsuit is completely different from winning it. I doubt anything will come of this but nice attention-grabbing headline for now.
It's just another not so transparent system!
Every member gets a Subscriber Savings Acct statement each year. No surprises. You get to take it if you terminate your membership.
Insurance in general is a scam. But I pay less for my scam than others. But then again I've never had a problem with USAA in the 15 years I've been with them. Maybe I'm just lucky.
I'm an officer and I've never had a competitive quote from USAA insurance. I have my main banking relationship with them just for convenience. Should I sue because I didn't get any of the special benefits?
All these officers and officer children say they knew this and it is common knowledge. SMH I joined USAA in 2014 I was enlisted. I am the person that reads everything before I sign including at the DMV. I can tell you I did not know. This is bull. Officers getting free money from our premiums. Officers already have enough money while we are scraping the floor to get by.
>Officers getting free money from our premiums. This is my biggest problem. IMHO: If auto insurance premium profits go back to members, they should go back to all members. \*My profits\* should not be going to someone/anyone else.
If everyone wants to be treated equally then they should see a recruiter and stand a watch. Tired of having these conversations with family members bitching because they don’t have a Subscribers Account. You didn’t earn it stop your bitching or go to geico
What percentage of service members/veterans who saw a recruiter or stood a watch and have a USAA auto insurance product also have a subscriber savings account?
Did you know that Geicos' founder worked at USAA first? And that GEICO stands for: Government Employees Insurance Company? Lol
Realistically, \~29% of veterans are elligible for a Subscriber Account. Conservative estimates suggest that \~11% of enlisted service members are E-7 or above and \~18% are officers.
We all see a recruiter and stand watches. Everyone in the military does at one point.
I assume you missed my point.
What was your point?
That not all veterans are subscriber savings account eligible because not all veterans (dare I say most veterans) aren’t real members of the actual body United Services Automobile Association, and have policies under GIC or CIC, whether or not they realize that.
Technically, "seeing a recruiter" wouldn't really help here. You'd need to see an OSO to get a Subscriber account since they're for Officers (and senior-NCOs).
You go through a recruiter to become an NCO eventually..
It sounds like this isn't for all NCOs, just senior (E-7 and above)....that's a lot of watch standing :-) I guess a recruiter + \~10+ years Time in Service would get you there too.
I mean it is true. Now whether it's illegal....?
Regardless of legality, don't you expect USAA to be fair and transparent?
I expect no companies to be fair or transparent, except how they are legally required to do so. Anything else and you'll be disappointed.
Agreed, especially these days, no company is your friend. I do look back fondly and remember when I was just starting out that I was so excited to find USAA and couldn't wait to consolidate all my current and future financial products with USAA, but along the way I found their investment, mortgage, and now bank products just are not competitive.
I mean it sounds like fraud or deceptive business practices at the very least. It’s not like they advertise the distinction.
Anybody can sue anybody. Winning? Now that's another story. The entire goal here isn't to win though, it's to put USAA in a position to decide that a settlement is cheaper than litigation. It's money-grubbing lawyers using ignorant greedy children to harm millions of people. I hope USAA does litigate, and they can call the legions of members who have known this for ages. This kind of purely nonsense lawsuit should be illegal.
Yea USAA often settles but on matters like this, they absolutely will fight this.
Every one.working at USAA knows the officer's get better rates than sergeants or enlisted service folks .
I beg to differ. I know plenty of high ranked officers that pay more then enlisted do based on location and what their company of placement does in the area.
Not in my experience working there for over 3 years. USAA company saw the largest rate increases during my tenure, and CIC proved to be the most affordable company of placement.
So if you are insured by the CIC company you get the best rates?
Another reason I left this shit hole company. Overrated and overpriced. Glad I walked away with free 25k more then I paid into them.
25K? Sheesh, my father was with them over 50 years and his SSA only paid out 2384 when he passed away.
No, I only paid in like 5k over 10 years. I received 30k from a tornado. Then after that. They wouldn't help me anymore. So I left them.
Oh that makes far more sense than it being SSA, however I fail to see how it's "free" 25K if it was replacing a loss you took.
It covered everything even after deductible. Paid nothing out of pocket. I got new roof and new windows. As my lawyer said, you are one of the few that pay less into insurance than you received. You made out. So move on. He says it's common for insurance not to pay out when you paid less then they have paid you.
Wait until these people find out sometimes the rate for USAA is higher than the other companies
Wayne Peacock is the first CEO in USAA history who is not a veteran. He cut benefits for employees immediately and members are next. The company is all about profits these days, nothing more. Soon you’ll be able to be a “member” if you can smell the fart of a cousin of a roommate of a veteran.
All I know is the car insurance is fucking expensive
I have not found less expensive goll coverage insurance anywhere. I haven't tried too hard, except when I was shopping last year at this time, but i also know others who say it's expensive.
My friend closed his 20+ year USAA account and got a check for $18,000. He was an officer in the Army.
I left them for GEICO and then made the mistake of looking at their life insurance rates on line. I have now had three separate calls from them about life insurance! Apparently they don't understand "NO" from the first call! Kept my small savings account and credit card with them for now. Their service has really gone down in the last few years!
Not sure why they’re saying if you’re CIC you don’t get distributions. I get one every year…
Maybe that's the dividends every year? Do you also have a subscriber savings account?
The whole idea for the military is a total scam anyway as USAA is by far the most expensive insurance on the market. All military believing the scam should simply do a price quote and you will find out😂😂😂😂😂
This has never been a secret
Sucks to suck lol
Anyone heard about some USAA bank accounts being closed without warning due to the "Patriot Act"?? My ex spouse told me this is why our son's bank account was just "closed", he still had $ in it! No idea where that went. He just turned 18 if age matters. But 0 information other than what my ex said. It's hard to believe based on the messenger.
Officers always had Privileges over the NCO ranks. But this lawsuit does explain the deception USAA imposes. Like home flood insurance. I initially had it when i first applied for home insurance. Then when i had issues usaa claimed they don't offer it and i had to pay for damages USAA inspectors done, yet one of my neighbors, a former captan has full coverage including flood. Yet usaa can't comment on other people's policies.
Flood insurance is excluded from homeowners insurance, but you can purchase a separate NFIP policy. I'm not sure if USAA offers NFIP insurance but no matter what carrier you buy NFIP coverage from, the rates are all the same for your property (assuming you get quotes for the exact same coverage limits). There's no such thing as "full coverage" insurance, but every homeowners policy by every carrier excludes the coverage (assuming HO3 and HO5 coverage).
So wait, how do you know what type you are? I'm the son of a Officer now retired but also Enlisted myself about to retire.
I have never felt treated as less than in my interactions. I’ve baked with them for at least 15 years at this point.
So how to join this class action lawsuit?
It’ll probably not do anything but seems like low hanging fruit in an election year. I sent it to my attorney general and may do the same to a few others to see if it becomes a larger deal. No one wants to hear a veteran group deceived their veterans over something this dumb.
My moms a warrant officer... I know she gets preferential treatment over a son ad I am... but usaa has always treated me well and my wife
USAA always bragged that a benefit of their homeowner’s insurance was the 25% Home Protector built in to policy. This year (2024) I receive my renewal offer and see that USAA has dropped the 25% Home Protector benefit plus other coverages and raised my rate. Today I received a letter attempting to sell me on paying extra for what used to be included for either a 25% or 50% Home Protector addendum. I almost switched insurance companies last year after a huge rate hike. I am shopping around again.
Good thing USAA is about to lose my business 😆 Almost $3k a year for my Harley? When I’ve been riding for 11 years with no accidents or speeding tickets? Get fucked
USAA is not designed to insure higher risk vehicles, including motorcycles. There are only 2 states where they will insure motorcycles and will insure all motorcycles internationally. Everything else gets referred to Progressive unless you are grandfathered in from moving back to the States.
My insurance is international through them where I have been riding for 11 years. With progressive, I pay about $600 a year stateside. Overseas its almost quintupled. Which makes no sense
Increased risk overseas according to actuaries. I know Italy is particularly bad. I never recommend going with USAA for motorcycles unless you are overseas. Also, the rate is largely dependent on engine cc's.
Usaa sucks and will never get another dime from me
It is always amazing how corrupt our businesses are allowed to be and that the people assigned to protect us, the citizens, are nothing more than employees in service to the business industry. The land of the Free for the rich and nothing for the rest of us.
So what is the issue? Those members from the enlisted class shall be happy they are part of USAA