Introduction
It has long been observed that the same condom driver in a predominantly minority travel rapidly code is often charged higher car policy premiums than if he or she lived in a non-minority neighborhood. A countrywide study by the Consumer Federation of America in 2015 found that predominantly African-American neighborhoods pay 70 percentage more, on average, for premiums than other areas do. But the insurance diligence has long argued that higher premiums in minority neighborhoods are justified by a higher risk of accidents. “ insurance rates are color-blind and entirely based on gamble, ” the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America declared in reception to the 2015 analyze .
Read the Story
Minority Neighborhoods Pay Higher Car Insurance Premiums Than White Areas With the Same Risk
Chicago Area Disparities in Car Insurance Premiums
Some car insurers charge higher premiums in Chicago ’ mho minority neighborhoods than in predominantly ashen neighborhoods with alike hazard of accidents. See the map .
We examined that assertion by studying public and secret data on car insurance risk and rates adenine good as the algorithm used to set prices in different states. We analyzed aggregate risk data by slide fastener code collected by the indemnity commissioners of California, Illinois, Missouri and Texas from insurers in their states. We compared that information with indebtedness insurance premiums — the sum of bodily injury and property damage quotes — charged by the largest companies by market share in each of the four states .
We found that some insurers were charging statistically importantly higher premiums in predominantly minority nothing codes, on average, than in similarly bad non-minority zip up codes. The deviation in premiums was specially stark in Illinois, where closely every insurance company showed a disparity at every risk tied. In California, Texas and Missouri, we found disparities in the hazardous energy codes .
In Illinois, 33 of 34 companies that we analyzed were charging more than 10 percentage higher on average for liability premiums in minority slide fastener codes than in white energy codes on median. We besides found that companies from the Allstate, Travelers, Metropolitan, Pekin, and Auto Owners policy groups were charging 30 percentage higher on average in bad minority nothing codes than in non-minority energy codes with alike gamble. Within the city of Chicago, we found that Berkshire Hathaway ( Geico ), Progressive, Metropolitan and Farmers showed disparities higher than 10 percentage .
In Missouri, we found 21 of 25 companies with pricing disparities that didn ’ t appear to be justified by hazard. Berkshire Hathaway, Liberty Mutual and Auto Club Enterprises all had subsidiaries that were charging 30 percentage more on median in bad minority neighborhoods compared with similarly bad majority white neighborhoods .
In Texas, we found 9 of 18 companies charging residents of bad minority slide fastener codes more than 10 percentage higher on average than residents of similar non-minority zip code codes .
And in California, 8 of 21 companies were charging more than 10 percentage higher on median in bad minority zip code codes than in alike non-minority slide fastener codes. Liberty Mutual was charging residents of these minority energy codes 32 percentage more on average than residents of non-minority energy codes .
How We Acquired the Data
We obtained data from two commercial data providers, Quadrant Information Services and S & P Global Inc. Quadrant provided us with 30 million premium quotes by travel rapidly code from the leading insurance companies across the nation. Those quotes reflected rates for forty-four offprint profiles of drivers, varying by such factors as gender, age, and family makeup. We used data from the Census ’ randomness American Community Survey to make sure that these profiles were a representative slice of the United States .
S & P provided us with rate filing manuals, which describe in detail how each insurance company sets rates. Where possible, we used public pace filings to check that the Quadrant premiums were compensate .
We besides filed public records requests for slide fastener code level risk data with policy commissioners from the 50 states and Washington D.C. Only California, Illinois, Missouri and Texas provided us with data. The other states all responded that they did not collect such data .
In California, Texas, Missouri and Illinois, we received zip-code flush data covering the act of cars see and payouts by the country ’ s insurers over the most recent five-year period for which datum is available. In Texas and Missouri, this loss data covers 2011 to 2015. California ’ s most late datum covers 2007 through 2011. In 2011, Illinois changed its data collection requirements, so we alone used three years of data, from 2012 through 2014 .
In California and Texas, the insurance commissioner provided us with receive losses, which are claims that were filed in those fourth dimension periods that have been paid in summation to an appraisal of claims that have not been paid. The Illinois and Missouri policy commissioners collect paid losses – claims that were paid in the calendar class .
The California loss data is adjusted for “ credibility ” in areas with first gear population. In that department of state, we used these leaden numbers .
California ’ second losses are besides capped : they alone represent payouts of minimum coverage policies. People buying insurance can choose to buy more or less coverage, and that means that their claim payouts can be more or less depending on their policy. California ’ second data is “ cap ” to a single degree of coverage in order to even out these differences. In the other three states, we used the bare-assed loss because we did not have access to capped losses .
In Texas, the risk data alone include claims and payouts by exceed insurers, which the submit said accounts for approximately 70 percentage of the private passenger car market. California says that its data covers 99 percentage of the market. In Missouri, the risk data covers more than 98 percentage of the grocery store. Illinois did not respond to questions on how much of the market their data covers, but their regulations say that coverage requirements are “ are applicable to all calculate property and liability business written by insurers licensed by the State of Illinois. ”
quadrant ’ s data covered 1,816 slide fastener codes in California, 2,023 nothing codes in Texas, 1,413 travel rapidly codes in Illinois and 1,009 zip code codes in Missouri .
Previous Work
The doubt of whether and to what extent disparities in car indemnity premiums between minority neighborhoods and non-minority neighborhoods are due to risk has been widely discussed. Research has been impeded by a lack of public data about risk at a zip up code horizontal surface .
A 1997 analyze of car indemnity rates in Texas found that “ drivers in hapless and minority communities were disproportionately rejected by standard insurers and forced into the higher cost non-standard ” policy plans that are designed as a last resort for people who can ’ thymine otherwise buy indemnity .
In 1998, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners studied a sample of car and homeowner insurance rates nationally and found that higher minority population of a nothing code was correlated with higher premiums, flush after controlling for factors related to risk. The report noted that travel rapidly code degree gamble data was not available .
besides in 1998, researchers at the University of South Carolina examined car policy rates in Missouri and did not find testify of racial discrimination. They used nothing code level data, including aggregated insurance company losses per zip code code, but did not examine individual companies .
In 2007, researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles examined car policy rates in Los Angeles by zip up code, and by company. They found that “ redline factors are associated with variations in insurance costs ” tied after risk factors were taken into explanation .
Analysis
policy companies calculate premiums based on their prediction of how hazardous a driver will be. In general, an insurance company will start with a base rate and increase or decrease that rate based on an guarantee ’ s drive record, demographics, location or other factors .
The types of factors used in these risk algorithms change widely. Some states allow insurers to use factors aside from driving records such as occupation and credit scores as part of their risk calculations .
In order to control for factors outside of geography, we limited our analysis to a single profile – a 30-year-old female safe driver who is a teacher with a bachelor ’ s degree and excellent credit, with no accidents or moving violations, and who is purchasing standard coverage with the company for the first time. She drives a 2016 Toyota Camry, and has a fifteen-mile commute, and drives around 13,000 miles a year. She is purchasing a policy for $ 100,000 of property price coverage and $ 100,000 to cover aesculapian bills per person astir to $ 300,000 per accident .
We focused on bodily injury and property damage indemnity premiums because most states require drivers to purchase them. Within the insurance industry, the combination of bodily injury and property damage coverage is known as indebtedness policy .
We compared the premiums charged by each insurance company in each slide fastener code with the average gamble of indebtedness payouts by all insurers in that nothing code .
We calculated a ratio for each travel rapidly code of payouts divided by the number of insured cars garaged in that energy code. In California, this is called “ median loss ” and is a meter of how expensive it is on average for an insurance company to write a policy in that slide fastener code :
\ ( Average\ Loss\ =\ \frac { Dollars\ Paid\ Out for\ Liability\ Claims\ by\ Insurers } { Number\ of\ Cars\ Insured\ by\ Insurers } \ )
To be certain, average loss will not precisely match each individual insurance company ’ south payouts in a given zip up code. But since insurers are not required to publicly divulge information about their own losses, average passing is the best approximation of loss available on a geographic basis .
We then sought to determine whether slide fastener codes with predominantly minority populations were priced differently than zip up codes with the like gamble and unlike demographics .
In California, we used the Department of Insurance ’ s definition of “ underserved ” zip codes. The department identifies 145 “ underserved ” slide fastener codes that have a minority population greater than 66 percentage, a family income below the median, and higher than modal symmetry of uninsured motorists .
In Texas, Illinois and Missouri, we used data from the Census Department ’ south American Community Survey 2014 five-year estimates to identify minority energy codes. In Texas, we followed California ’ s definition of define minority nothing codes as having greater than 66 percentage minority population. In Missouri and Illinois, we defined minority energy codes as having greater than 50 percentage minority population in order to have a sufficiently large sample distribution size .
We then created discriminate statistical models for minority and non-minority energy codes to examine differences in pricing. We fit smoothing splines to each forecaster : in this case, Average Loss. Because policy companies do not publish their implicit in model procedures, we used these splines for their tractability. This is how we defined each exemplary :
\ ( Bodily\ Injury\ Premium = Spline ( Average\ Loss ) + e\ )
We limited our psychoanalysis to zip codes with average losses ranging from $ 25 to $ 400, except in Illinois where we limited the window from $ 50 to $ 300 in an campaign to remove outliers. here are the model predictions :
In Illinois, we found that premiums were much higher on modal in minority energy codes compared to non-minority slide fastener codes with exchangeable risk. In fact, many insurers ’ rates showed little association to hazard .
In the other three states, we saw a alike disparity between minority and non-minority zip code codes but alone in those with high average losses. We calculated average premiums for minority and non-minority slide fastener codes using predictions from the spline models. This allowed us to calculate a ratio for every company in a department of state :
\ ( Ratio = \frac { Average\ Minority\ Prediction } { Average\ NonMinority\ Prediction } \ )
We entirely calculated these ratios for areas with loss measures greater than $ 250, except in Illinois where we lowered this threshold to $ 200. We chose these thresholds to ensure that the average loss of the minority zip up codes was like to the average personnel casualty of non-minority zip code codes. We found that our conclusions were like when we used analogue models alternatively of splines .
When we repeated the analysis across all 44 profiles, the results were similar .
The results of this analysis are provided in the table below. Ratios reflecting a disparity of greater than 10 percentage are in crimson. Ratios higher than 5 percentage are in yellow .
| Group | Company Name | CA | Chicago, IL | IL | MO | TX |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | – | 1.042 | 1.226 | 1.139 | 1.124 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | 0.981 | 1.015 | 1.42 | 1.171 | 1.104 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Northbrook Ind Co | 0.981 | – | – | – | – |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | – | 1 | 1.195 | 1.271 | – |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | – | 1 | 1.184 | 1.27 | – |
| Auto Club Enterprises Ins Grp | Automobile Club Interins Exch | – | – | – | 1.305 | – |
| AUTO OWNERS GRP | Owners Ins Co | – | 1.046 | 1.55 | – | – |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | 1.034 | 1.096 | 1.16 | 1.248 | – |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | 1.031 | 1.189 | 1.21 | – | 1.102 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | 1.031 | 1.18 | 1.219 | 1.274 | 1.1 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | – | 1.189 | 1.21 | 1.406 | 1.102 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Mut Ins Co | – | 1 | 1.149 | – | – |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Pref Ins Co | – | 1 | 1.152 | – | – |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Co | – | 1.006 | 1.244 | – | – |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Exch | – | 1.006 | 1.246 | – | – |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Centennial Ins Co | – | – | – | 1.216 | 1.079 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Co Inc | – | – | – | 1.197 | – |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Exch | 1.073 | – | – | – | – |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers TX Cnty Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | – | 1.054 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Illinois Farmers Ins Co | – | 1.107 | 1.275 | – | – |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Mid Century Ins Co | 1.073 | – | – | – | – |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Trumbull Ins Co | – | 1.007 | 1.13 | – | – |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Twin City Fire Ins Co Co | – | – | – | 1.133 | – |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | First Liberty Ins Corp | – | 1.003 | 1.235 | – | – |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Cnty Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | – | 1.053 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | 1.327 | 1.003 | 1.234 | – | – |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of Amer | 1.115 | – | – | – | – |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | – | 1.044 | 1.174 | 1.336 | – |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | California Automobile Ins Co | 1.019 | – | – | – | – |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | Mercury Ins Co | 1.02 | – | – | – | – |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Economy Preferred Ins Co | – | 1.002 | 1.406 | – | – |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Cas Ins Co | – | 1.005 | 1.397 | – | – |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Grp Prop & Cas Ins Co | – | 1.152 | 1.327 | – | – |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Prop & Cas Ins Co | – | 1.044 | 1.55 | – | – |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Allied Prop & Cas Ins Co | 1.14 | – | – | 1.246 | – |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Amco Ins Co | 1.14 | – | – | – | – |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Colonial Cnty Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | – | 1.152 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Affinity Co of Amer | – | – | – | 1.242 | – |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Ins Co Of Amer | 1.099 | – | – | 1.22 | – |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | – | 1.081 |
| PEKIN INS GRP | Farmers Automobile Ins Assoc | – | 1.051 | 2.097 | – | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Advanced Ins Co | – | – | – | 1.177 | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cas Ins Co | – | – | – | 1.265 | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cnty Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | – | 1.014 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Direct Ins Co | – | 1.111 | 1.156 | – | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northern Ins Co | – | 1.153 | 1.21 | – | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northwestern Ins Co | – | – | – | 1.291 | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Universal Ins Co | – | 1.11 | 1.149 | – | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive West Ins Co | 1.073 | – | – | – | – |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | United Financial Cas Co | 1.05 | – | – | – | – |
| SHELTER INS GRP | Shelter Mut Ins Co | – | – | – | 1.286 | – |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Cnty Mut Ins Co Of TX | – | – | – | – | 1.059 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | – | 0.994 | 1.19 | 1.283 | 1.064 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | 1.063 | 0.995 | 1.19 | 1.283 | 1.064 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Commercial Ins Co | – | 1.06 | 1.391 | – | – |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co | – | 1.06 | 1.393 | – | – |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | 1.189 | 1.034 | 1.092 | 0.994 | 1.112 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | 1.189 | 1.029 | 1.134 | 1.042 | 1.105 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | 1.189 | 1.035 | 1.113 | 0.992 | 1.108 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | 1.178 | 1.053 | 1.142 | 1 | 1.088 |
Higher ratios indicate larger difference between prices in minority neighborhoods to those in similarly hazardous non-minority neighborhoods, on average .
The ratios are the starkest in Illinois, which is one of the least regulate states for car insurance. But some insurers besides have high ratios in California .
An Examination of Affordability
We besides used the Quadrant bounty data to examine car insurance affordability by travel rapidly code .
We used our 30 million car policy quotes to calculate a ratio of annual premiums as a share of median family income. These annual premiums include indebtedness indemnity a well as more optional coverage like collision indemnity, comprehensive indemnity and early premiums that are designed to protect the car owner .
We found that car insurance quotes were more than twice the contribution of median family income in minority-majority energy codes ( 11 percentage ) on average when compared with households in majority white neighborhoods ( 5 percentage ) .
The U.S. Treasury Department has defined car insurance as low-cost if it costs 2 percentage or less of family income .
A Look at California
In California ’ s highly-regulated indemnity market, insurers besides must give less slant to placement than to driving record. Insurers are allowed two unlike factors for location-based risk : one for frequency of claims — number of claims divided by policies written in a year — and another for asperity of claims — indemnity payouts divided by the number of claims .
California regulations require that company specific data for frequency and asperity be “ credible ”, where “ credibility ” is defined in terms of statistical accuracy and preciseness as mandated by country regulations. These rules dictate that a company has received claims from a minimum of 6000 accidents in a travel rapidly code over a certain time period, and that the statistical accuracy of this company-chosen clock time period meets the country ’ sulfur requirements. If the data does not meet those thresholds, companies must combine their data with the state ’ s .
however in areas where the combined data even isn ’ triiodothyronine credible, companies are able to use a provision of the law that allows insurers to group non-credible zip code codes together in order to meet that prerequisite .
The companies with the highest ratios in our analysis disclosed in their public filings that they use this method acting. Some companies disclose that they use clustering algorithms such as K-Means to draw these areas of contiguous energy codes. Others don ’ t disclose their algorithm .
much, the companies use these algorithms to group these zip codes with nearby areas that besides have few policy-holders, according to insurers ’ rate filings. This potentially causes higher hazard zip code codes in these areas to be assigned the average gamble for the area, and in many cases, lower gamble than what the submit estimates .
A Look at Chicago
In an campaign to control disparate price, Illinois passed a jurisprudence in 1972 requiring each cable car indemnity company to charge the same price for bodily injury policy throughout Chicago. however, each company ’ s indebtedness policy premiums can still vary within the city because drivers are required to buy policies that include both bodily wound and property price coverage, and there is no like restriction on the version of prices for property wrong .
Because of Chicago ’ s unique position, we analyzed Chicago zip up codes individually from the respite of Illinois. We found eight companies that were charging higher prices on median for hazardous energy codes in predominantly minority neighborhoods compared to similarly hazardous non-minority energy codes within Chicago ( see table above ) .
Limitations
A restriction of this sketch is that in some cases the slat models we used had relatively low R-squared values ( see model fits below ). Because these values were therefore low, overall averages may not be accurate estimates .
In arrange to be confident in our results, we besides calculated the medians of the match values, the means of the actual values and the medians of the actual values. We compared this extra data to the mean we calculated in the report and found that they were similar .
however, these first gear R-squared values besides point to another conclusion. The fact that the two distributions don ’ thymine pipeline up suggests that policy companies ’ premiums are weakly related to risk .
Another restriction is that companies may have a different distribution of risk than the state ’ second aggregate risk numbers. But it is improbable that those differences would result in a coherent practice of higher prices for minority neighborhoods .
While companies do not by and large publicly disclose their underlie risk numbers, we found a 2015 rate filing in California from Nationwide that did include its inner passing numbers. This charge showed that Nationwide ’ s home numbers were different than the department of state ’ south, but it besides showed that Nationwide ’ s internal risk numbers were statistically importantly correlated with the department of state ’ mho ( Pearson : 0.43, 95 % CI:0.39, 0.47 ) .
We ran the same psychoanalysis as above on premiums from Nationwide ’ mho Allied subordinate and Nationwide ’ s internal loss and found that the disparity between premiums in hazardous underserved areas was 21 percentage higher on average than in similarly hazardous non-underserved areas.That disparity is slightly greater than the 14 percentage we found when comparing Allied premiums to overall state hazard data .
Model Diagnostics
Illinois Model
| Name | Company Name | Minority Model | P Value of the State Risk Term | R Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.023 | 0.129 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.227 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | TRUE | 0.11 | 0.060 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.215 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | TRUE | 0.031 | 0.090 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.273 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | TRUE | 0.03 | 0.091 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.207 |
| AUTO OWNERS GRP | Owners Ins Co | TRUE | 0.067 | 0.075 |
| AUTO OWNERS GRP | Owners Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.213 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | TRUE | 0.03 | 0.108 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.316 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | TRUE | 0.076 | 0.067 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.177 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | TRUE | 0.065 | 0.077 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.210 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | TRUE | 0.076 | 0.067 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.177 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Mut Ins Co | TRUE | 0.051 | 0.091 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.272 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Pref Ins Co | TRUE | 0.056 | 0.089 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Pref Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.276 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Co | TRUE | 0.02 | 0.125 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.308 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Exch | TRUE | 0.018 | 0.128 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Exch | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.307 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Illinois Farmers Ins Co | TRUE | 0.017 | 0.114 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Illinois Farmers Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.131 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Trumbull Ins Co | TRUE | 0.004 | 0.135 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Trumbull Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.288 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | First Liberty Ins Corp | TRUE | 0.077 | 0.079 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | First Liberty Ins Corp | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.246 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | TRUE | 0.074 | 0.080 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.246 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | TRUE | 0.01 | 0.138 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.262 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Economy Preferred Ins Co | TRUE | 0.16 | 0.061 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Economy Preferred Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.169 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.14 | 0.065 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.179 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Grp Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.51 | 0.017 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Grp Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.254 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.1 | 0.076 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.155 |
| PEKIN INS GRP | Farmers Automobile Ins Assoc | TRUE | 0.12 | 0.014 |
| PEKIN INS GRP | Farmers Automobile Ins Assoc | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.030 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Direct Ins Co | TRUE | 0.01 | 0.090 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Direct Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.319 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northern Ins Co | TRUE | 0.009 | 0.092 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northern Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.325 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Universal Ins Co | TRUE | 0.009 | 0.091 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Universal Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.323 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | TRUE | 0.01 | 0.137 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.362 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | TRUE | 0.009 | 0.138 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.362 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Commercial Ins Co | TRUE | 0.076 | 0.081 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Commercial Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.126 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co | TRUE | 0.077 | 0.080 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.126 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.4 | 0.009 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.166 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | TRUE | 0.12 | 0.036 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.132 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.34 | 0.028 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.128 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | TRUE | 0.1 | 0.054 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.229 |
Chicago Model
| Name | Company Name | Minority Model | P Value of the State Risk Term | R Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.34 | -0.002 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.5 | 0.086 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | TRUE | 0.57 | -0.024 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | FALSE | 0.9 | -0.058 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | TRUE | 0.6 | -0.025 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | FALSE | – | -Inf |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | TRUE | 0.6 | -0.025 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | FALSE | – | -Inf |
| AUTO OWNERS GRP | Owners Ins Co | TRUE | 0.34 | -0.002 |
| AUTO OWNERS GRP | Owners Ins Co | FALSE | 0.43 | -0.020 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | TRUE | 0.21 | 0.021 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | FALSE | 0.21 | 0.038 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | TRUE | 0.84 | -0.034 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | FALSE | 0.22 | 0.033 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | TRUE | 0.92 | -0.035 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | FALSE | 0.31 | 0.006 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | TRUE | 0.84 | -0.034 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | FALSE | 0.22 | 0.033 |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Mut Ins Co | TRUE | – | – |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Mut Ins Co | FALSE | – | -Inf |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Pref Ins Co | TRUE | > 0.99 | -Inf |
| Country Ins & Fin Serv Grp | Country Pref Ins Co | FALSE | – | -Inf |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Co | TRUE | 0.34 | -0.002 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Co | FALSE | 0.48 | -0.027 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Exch | TRUE | 0.34 | -0.002 |
| ERIE INS GRP | Erie Ins Exch | FALSE | 0.48 | -0.027 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Illinois Farmers Ins Co | TRUE | 0.23 | 0.017 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Illinois Farmers Ins Co | FALSE | 0.83 | -0.056 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Trumbull Ins Co | TRUE | 0.68 | -0.029 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Trumbull Ins Co | FALSE | 0.09 | 0.110 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | First Liberty Ins Corp | TRUE | 0.6 | -0.025 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | First Liberty Ins Corp | FALSE | 0.48 | -0.027 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | TRUE | 0.6 | -0.025 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | FALSE | 0.48 | -0.027 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | TRUE | 0.15 | 0.040 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | FALSE | 0.095 | 0.329 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Economy Preferred Ins Co | TRUE | 0.021 | 0.145 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Economy Preferred Ins Co | FALSE | 0.54 | 0.079 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.017 | 0.156 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.54 | 0.081 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Grp Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.26 | 0.011 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Grp Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.28 | 0.014 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.51 | 0.022 |
| METROPOLITAN GRP | Metropolitan Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.1 | 0.327 |
| PEKIN INS GRP | Farmers Automobile Ins Assoc | TRUE | 0.34 | -0.002 |
| PEKIN INS GRP | Farmers Automobile Ins Assoc | FALSE | 0.48 | -0.027 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Direct Ins Co | TRUE | 0.2 | 0.078 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Direct Ins Co | FALSE | 0.3 | 0.007 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northern Ins Co | TRUE | 0.2 | 0.079 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northern Ins Co | FALSE | 0.31 | 0.006 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Universal Ins Co | TRUE | 0.19 | 0.081 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Universal Ins Co | FALSE | 0.31 | 0.005 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | TRUE | > 0.99 | -Inf |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | FALSE | 0.1 | 0.278 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | TRUE | – | – |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | FALSE | 0.089 | 0.296 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Commercial Ins Co | TRUE | 0.41 | 0.075 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Commercial Ins Co | FALSE | 0.008 | 0.307 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co | TRUE | 0.41 | 0.073 |
| Travelers Grp | Travelers Home & Marine Ins Co | FALSE | 0.008 | 0.306 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.44 | -0.013 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.83 | -0.056 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | TRUE | 0.31 | 0.002 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | FALSE | 0.29 | 0.250 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.36 | -0.005 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | FALSE | 0.98 | -0.059 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | TRUE | 0.35 | 0.106 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | FALSE | 0.47 | 0.122 |
Missouri Model
| Name | Company Name | Minority Model | P Value of the State Risk Term | R Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.006 | 0.151 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.216 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | TRUE | 0.009 | 0.185 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.211 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.315 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Family Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.320 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.315 |
| AMERICAN FAMILY INS GRP | American Standard Ins Co of WI | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.320 |
| Auto Club Enterprises Ins Grp | Automobile Club Interins Exch | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.374 |
| Auto Club Enterprises Ins Grp | Automobile Club Interins Exch | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.342 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.374 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.283 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.340 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.295 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.287 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.194 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Centennial Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.369 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Centennial Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.329 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Co Inc | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.258 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Co Inc | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.220 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Twin City Fire Ins Co Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.379 |
| HARTFORD FIRE & CAS GRP | Twin City Fire Ins Co Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.294 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.357 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of IL | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.265 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Allied Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.514 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Allied Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.332 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Affinity Co of Amer | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.487 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Affinity Co of Amer | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.344 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Ins Co Of Amer | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.449 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Ins Co Of Amer | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.321 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Advanced Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.357 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Advanced Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.340 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.358 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.341 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northwestern Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.351 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Northwestern Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.337 |
| SHELTER INS GRP | Shelter Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.342 |
| SHELTER INS GRP | Shelter Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.365 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.312 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.277 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.313 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.277 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.33 | 0.000 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.027 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | TRUE | 0.86 | -0.018 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | FALSE | 0.98 | -0.001 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | TRUE | 0.31 | 0.002 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.026 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | TRUE | 0.51 | -0.014 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | FALSE | 0.001 | 0.016 |
Texas Model
| Name | Company Name | Minority Model | P Value of the State Risk Term | R Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.526 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Fire & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.315 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.510 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.495 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.435 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.373 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.412 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.348 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.435 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Government Employees Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.373 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Centennial Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.441 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Centennial Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.367 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers TX Cnty Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.630 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers TX Cnty Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.543 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Cnty Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.380 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Cnty Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.331 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Colonial Cnty Mut Ins Co | TRUE | 0.002 | 0.037 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Colonial Cnty Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.020 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.359 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Mut Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.320 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cnty Mut Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.069 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive Cnty Mut Ins Co | FALSE | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Cnty Mut Ins Co Of TX | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.587 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Cnty Mut Ins Co Of TX | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.496 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.601 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Fire & Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.518 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.601 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.518 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.434 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.431 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.438 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.452 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.465 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.427 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.527 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.485 |
California Model
| Name | Company Name | Minority Model | P Value of the State Risk Term | R Squared |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.850 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Allstate Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.736 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Northbrook Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.851 |
| ALLSTATE INS GRP | Northbrook Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.739 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.824 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.740 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.831 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Gen Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.750 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.831 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY GRP | Geico Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.750 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.671 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | 21st Century Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.580 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Exch | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.833 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Farmers Ins Exch | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.752 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Mid Century Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.833 |
| FARMERS INS GRP | Mid Century Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.752 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.706 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Liberty Mut Fire Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.695 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of Amer | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.864 |
| LIBERTY MUT GRP | Safeco Ins Co Of Amer | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.713 |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | California Automobile Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.856 |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | California Automobile Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.733 |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | Mercury Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.857 |
| MERCURY GEN GRP | Mercury Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.733 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Allied Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.855 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Allied Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.757 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Amco Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.855 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Amco Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.757 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Ins Co Of Amer | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.788 |
| NATIONWIDE CORP GRP | Nationwide Ins Co Of Amer | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.754 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive West Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.876 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | Progressive West Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.772 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | United Financial Cas Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.752 |
| PROGRESSIVE GRP | United Financial Cas Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.752 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.838 |
| STATE FARM GRP | State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.781 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.544 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | Garrison Prop & Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.328 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.543 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | United Serv Automobile Assn | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.328 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.544 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Cas Ins Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.328 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | TRUE | < 0.001 | 0.548 |
| UNITED SERV AUTOMOBILE ASSN GRP | USAA Gen Ind Co | FALSE | < 0.001 | 0.366 |
Julia Angwin is a elder reporter at ProPublica. From 2000 to 2013, she was a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, where she led a privacy fact-finding team that was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Reporting in 2011 and won a Gerald Loeb Award in 2010.
Lauren Kirchner is a senior report fellow at ProPublica. She has covered digital security and urge freedom issues for the Columbia Journalism Review, and crime and criminal justice for Pacific Standard magazine .
Surya Mattu was a contributing research worker at ProPublica .
production by Sisi Wei .