I've noticed the same pattern too. Had a Mustang GT a while back, and my usual military insurer quoted me like I was planning to drive it off a cliff every weekend...ended up going elsewhere. Funny thing is, my buddy's Jeep Wrangler got fantastic rates, even though he off-roads it constantly. Makes me wonder, do military insurers just see certain cars as inherently riskier, regardless of actual driving habits?
"Makes me wonder, do military insurers just see certain cars as inherently riskier, regardless of actual driving habits?"
Honestly, it's not just military insurers—most companies have their own internal data that labels certain cars as "high-risk," regardless of how you personally drive. Sports cars like Mustangs often get lumped into that category because statistically they're involved in more claims (speeding, accidents, thefts...). Jeeps, even though they're off-roaded a lot, might not trigger the same red flags because insurers see them as sturdier or less likely to be involved in high-speed collisions.
But here's the thing: I've seen some pretty odd exceptions. Had a client once whose Subaru WRX got cheaper rates than his wife's Toyota Camry—go figure. Makes me wonder if location or even the insurer's own experience with certain models plays a bigger role than we think. Anyone else had weird experiences with specific car models and insurance quotes?
"Makes me wonder if location or even the insurer's own experience with certain models plays a bigger role than we think."
You're definitely onto something here. From what I've seen over the years, it's rarely just about the car itself—there's a whole web of factors insurers look at, and some of them can seem pretty random at first glance. A few things I've picked up along the way:
- **Location matters big time**: Had a buddy who moved literally two zip codes over, same city, same car, and his premium dropped noticeably. Turns out his new neighborhood had fewer claims overall, so insurers adjusted accordingly.
- **Insurer's own claim history**: Sometimes companies have their own internal data that's totally different from industry averages. If they've had a bad run with a specific model, they'll hike rates for that car, even if other insurers don't.
- **Safety ratings and theft rates**: Even if your personal driving record is spotless, insurers can't ignore broader statistics. Cars frequently stolen or involved in serious accidents (like Mustangs or Chargers) often get flagged as high-risk.
- **Oddball exceptions**: Like your Subaru WRX example—I've seen similar weirdness. My cousin drives a Mazda Miata (tiny little convertible, you'd think it'd be pricey to insure), yet he's paying less than his brother does for a Honda Accord sedan. Go figure...
Bottom line, your driving habits matter, but insurers are playing a numbers game. They're looking at big-picture trends and historical data more than individual driving styles. It can feel unfair at times, but that's how they keep their risk calculations consistent.
Your experience isn't unusual at all—insurance pricing is one of those things that never seems completely logical from our perspective.
You're right that insurers lean heavily on location and their own internal data, but honestly, I think the military discount angle might be a bit overstated sometimes. I've seen plenty of cases where military folks didn't actually get cheaper rates—at least not significantly. Sure, some companies market heavily to service members and offer discounts upfront, but when you dig into the actual numbers, those savings aren't always as impressive as advertised.
For example, my brother-in-law is active duty and switched to one of those big-name military-focused insurers thinking he'd save a ton. Turns out he ended up paying about the same as before once all the factors were accounted for—location, vehicle type, driving history. The "military discount" was offset by other rating factors that insurer used.
So yeah, while location and model-specific claim history definitely matter, I'd argue that the whole "military gets cheaper insurance" thing isn't universally true. It's more nuanced than just being in uniform...
Interesting point—makes me wonder if it's a similar story for other advertised discounts, like bundling home and auto. I've always assumed I'd save a lot by combining policies, but when I actually ran the numbers, it wasn't that impressive. Do insurers just shuffle discounts around to make them look appealing, or is there real value hiding somewhere I'm missing?
