rpg25

rpg25 t1_jebhkts wrote

That may have been your experience… But I have it on good authority from people who I trust that would have no reason to lie to me that they got dropped after a single claim. And honestly? It stands to reason that they might drop you after one claim to keep rates low.

1

rpg25 t1_jebfut9 wrote

Wow. And here I am having had them for two years, but have since left, thinking they were the exact same coverage. No wonder they can do it so much cheaper than everyone else. They are not covering the same shit everyone else is!

1

rpg25 t1_jebfd0n wrote

I loved NJM when I had it but they raised my rate each year I was with them despite me having made no claims or getting any tickets while with them. Also have a decent number of coworkers who claim that NJM dropped them almost immediately upon making a claim.

Food for thought. The dividend check is nice and so is the price of insurance, but just be careful to double check the price when you renew and don't be surprised if you get dropped for making a claim.

2

rpg25 t1_jebf13e wrote

Can't say I had the same experience with them. I had them for two years and each year they drastically raised my rate despite having made no claims or having any adverse events on my driving record. I'm convinced it was a teaser rate to get me to bite and then they raised it when they felt they could.

Of my coworkers? Many swear by them and recommend them like yourself. That said, there are also a decent amount of guys who said that they were dropped after one claim.

4

rpg25 t1_j8rrmjo wrote

Wrong. Overtime is not pensionable in NJ. Only your base salary is. He could work $1m in OT. It’s not going to increase his pension on cent.

Does anyone know if this guy “retired” before he took the director job? That could explain the large number. He could have retired from the police service and been cut a check for a career’s worth of unused vacation, holidays, comp time, and sick time (sick is capped at $15K and comp time 480 hours worth).

2

rpg25 t1_j8rrdbv wrote

It’s not just unions. It’s the towns themselves. I know of a jurisdiction that had a massive opportunity to consolidate and not lay anyone off due to attrition (there were a large amount of people set to retire). They didn’t pursue it because they would lose home rule and there was just too much “unknown” for them.

3

rpg25 t1_j8rnxp3 wrote

You’re correct in thinking that the construction companies are the ones paying to have traffic control and security. That said, it’s naive if you think that cost doesn’t get built into the project and thusly passed on to the general public. It may not be “tax dollars” but it certainly otherwise contributes to the high cost of living in this area.

2