It never fails to surprise me how much of a hot-button issue credit scoring continues to be in our industry. It's not like it's some new idea — insurers have been using it since at least the early 1990s. And although Robert Hunter, Birny Birnbaum and the rest of the gang at the Center for Economic Justice regularly testify against it, most of the insurance industry has pretty much come to accept it as a way of writing business today.

Except, it would seem, for insurance agents.

Way back in March, we published a “Sounding Board” op ed from NAMIC about the efficacy of credit scoring. We're still getting letters from readers (watch for the latest in our October issue), and plenty of them are pretty heated.

Over the past 6 months or so, here's what you've had to say about credit scoring:

In response to the article “Credit Scoring: Tough to explain, hard to beat” by Bart Anderson (AA&B 3/10), I don't believe that rates should be based on our clients' spending habits.

People grow up and their driving habits change. We only charge for minor violations for 3 years and major violations for 10 years (here in California). It can take longer than that to repair a client's credit. These are the same people who last year had excellent credit. Their driving habits have not changed, the economy has.

This is the time to rate on actual figures that have a direct correlation with the risk. Driving records, claims experience, age, geography, mileage, use, vehicle type and marital status are excellent rating factors. Most of these are choices that give the client an opportunity to change in the short term if they cannot afford insurance. Rating on credit in these times is not as accurate an interpretation of the client.