Experiencing an unexpected car insurance cancellation can be unsettling, especially after years of loyalty and a clean driving record. One driver recently shared their surprise at Geico dropping their coverage, citing their Acura NSX and 2010 TL as “race cars” unsuitable for insurance, while oddly still willing to cover an S2K and Odyssey. This situation raises questions about how insurance companies assess risk and what data they might be using behind the scenes.
Alt text: NSX Prime forum logo, related to discussion on Acura data sharing and insurance.
The cancellation coincides with growing concerns about data collection by insurance companies through various means, potentially including smartphone apps and even data from your vehicle itself. Reports have surfaced detailing how seemingly innocuous apps, like Gas Buddy, are actually feeding driving data to companies like Arity, which is owned by Allstate, a competitor of Geico. These apps, along with others such as Life360 and MyRadar, monitor driving habits, speed, braking patterns, and location, then package this information for insurers.
Alt text: News report excerpt from NYPost.com about car insurance companies secretly collecting driver data via phone apps.
This raises the specter of insurers like Geico potentially leveraging OBD2 (On-Board Diagnostics II) data, either directly or indirectly. OBD2 ports are standard in modern vehicles and are primarily designed for diagnostics and emissions testing. However, they can also provide a wealth of real-time vehicle data, including speed, mileage, engine performance, and potentially driving behavior.
While there’s no direct evidence Geico is explicitly using OBD2 data without consent, the broader trend of data collection within the insurance industry is clear. The original poster in the forum thread speculated about Acura possibly sharing data with LexisNexis, a data broker that provides risk assessment information to insurance companies. Whether through apps, data brokers, or potentially telematics systems that could interface with OBD2, the collection of driving data is becoming increasingly prevalent.
The concern is that this data collection can be opaque and lack crucial context. As one individual noted, relying solely on app-based data can lead to inaccurate assessments. For example, cycling speeds might be misconstrued as speeding in a car, or vehicle testing by service personnel could be interpreted as risky driving behavior. Voluntary usage of these apps for discounts can also be problematic, with users finding it difficult to achieve perfect driving scores due to overly sensitive metrics.
In conclusion, while the exact reasons for Geico’s cancellation in the initial case remain unclear, it highlights a broader trend of data-driven risk assessment in the car insurance industry. The potential use of OBD2 data, alongside app-based tracking and data brokers, means drivers should be aware of how their driving behavior might be monitored and factored into insurance decisions. Reviewing app permissions and understanding data privacy practices are increasingly important in navigating the evolving landscape of car insurance.
