The results--published in its August issue, under the banner headline: "Caution! The Secret Score Behind Your Auto Insurance"--were certainly not a ringing endorsement of the industry in terms of the fairness and objectivity of its pricing.

Of the major carrier groups, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies appears to be the only one to have bothered making a statement. NAMIC cited four points in rejecting the article's findings:

1. States require disclosure of the use of rating factors and policyholder notification when it results in an adverse action.

2. States have imposed standards on credit scoring, including that it cannot be used as the sole criterion for denial, cancellation or nonrenewal of an insurance policy.

3. The association called into question Consumer's assertion over whether insurers use credit scoring differently than do bankers and lenders.

4. NAMIC said the popularity of credit scoring within the wider business community refutes Consumer's observation that the information is inherently unreliable.

It is on this last point where I think NAMIC most misses the mark, dismissing Consumer's charge outright without dealing with a question about what might be a fundamental flaw in the use of such data.

As a consumer, I would feel a little uneasy about anyone getting my credit history and using it to underwrite my insurance coverage. Maybe that's because I can imagine times in an individual's life where finances don't work out exactly the way one likes, and a person might find themselves a little overextended.

That doesn't mean I'm going to crash my car the next day--unless while I'm driving, I'm distracted while rifling through my wallet looking for a credit card that isn't overextended.

In any case, NAMIC's argument does little to satisfy consumer anxiety.

It is particularly unsettling that other company associations were officially silent, acting as if this issue is settled, or that the topic is to be avoided altogether. There are states still raising questions, after all.

According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' Web site, Oregon, for one, is considering a voter referendum to ban credit scoring. Other states have contemplated such bans, which were beaten back--I'm sure, in part, by some effective lobbying on the industry's part.

Having gone through an incorrect reporting incident a few years ago, I do question whether credit information is reliable. When it is not, in my experience, the onus was placed upon me--the consumer--to correct the reporting agency's error at my expense. Why is that?

Such a reporting system is not fair when it is often inaccurate. Since insurers are so keen on using credit scoring, perhaps they should be putting more pressure on credit reporting companies to provide more accurate and current data.

That would seem to me to be a fair tradeoff. Since insurers are so intent on using data that could prove beneficial or detrimental to my pocketbook, not to mention their own, shouldn't they make sure such data is correct? Or does the insurance community prefer playing defense?

Such problems, when left unresolved, have a way of coming back to haunt you. One misstep, one scandal, and the industry can kiss credit scoring goodbye.

If the industry believes the investigations and settlements that stemmed from the kickback scandal over contingent commissions is bad, can you imagine the wrath of prosecutors and regulators if misuse of credit scoring adversely impacts a few million average American voters?