[usaar333]

As far as I can tell, Goodcover wrote this as marketing to show that they both have less increased pricing bias toward neighborhoods that are more Black -- and also are significantly cheaper.

It's the significantly cheaper that is most surprising to me. They are about $100 a year vs. $175 a year for their competitions.

This makes me wonder -- have they managed to cut bloat by 40% or are they simply using different qualifications to restrict their insurance to lower risk people? If it's the latter, this comparison is not apples-to-apples.

[TMWNN]

>It's the significantly cheaper that is most surprising to me. They are about $100 a year vs. $175 a year for their competitions.

I pay Goodcover $72/year for renters insurance, versus $148/year for a comparable policy from Liberty Mutual obtained less than three months earlier,

[rubyfan]

many insurance companies have minimum premiums around $100-140 per year for renters depending on their OIE. renter is usually fairly simplistic in terms of its segmentation. a persons insurance score is small part of that, coverage limits like liability and contents coverage will drive cost but also geography will price perils like theft and weather perils (the later should be light since renters is really just contents and liability). so you’d expect geography for renters to be somewhat of a larger influence. it’s unlikely any insurance carrier is specifically pricing to penalize for the color of your skin. it is probable though that there are some correlation with something else they are pricing for.