151–160 of 175 posts
Not sure it's the first. At least, I know of https://heyguevara.com/ is a P2P car insurance provider in the UK that is registered with the FSA and licensed to provide insurance products. They've been operating for a couple of years now.
However, those options are hilarious : http://imgur.com/a/r0aar
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They run a credit check to determine your premium (in part). So yeah, they need your name... https://lemonade.com/faq#general
They need more than my name to run a credit check. They need something they're not going to get, which is my SSN.
https://www.transunion.com/product/truerisk
No SS needed.
The best form of insurance is self insurance, if you have some money on the side. Instead of paying someone to insure the risk (and get rich on top of the rent), I allocate a reasonable amount (5 figures) and put it on the side, and take the risk on myself.
I read some of the comments about the funnel and I set out to try it myself. There are 8 steps to get a quote 1. First and last name 2. Full address 3. question (renter/owner) 4. roomates/alarm 5. current owner of insurance? 6. Jewelry over 1000$? 7. email, birthday 8. Quote, which seems highly generic and could be done without 6 of the 7 previous steps. I can't even imagine the conversion rate from just checking it…
In this case, you can look up the public filing at https://filingaccess.serff.com/sfa/home/NY (search for Lemonade as the company)
or here is a public dropbox folder. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dc6daybikir92l1/AAAWWT6J0DfsPG7nA... of it
Expected Loss ratio is 50%.
Pricing structure is pretty standard.
Why not give the leftovers back to customers? There's incentive in that to be a lower risk client.
They answered this in a Techcrunch article: [1] “Our initial application to the department was to give the money back to consumers. They were not going to do it as the laws are currently drafted,” said Daniel Schreiber. They also stated they're hoping/looking to change those laws. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/21/less-exciting-than-beyonce...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure it would (it doesn't really for mutuals...)
Perhaps I should've worded my question better to avoid your snark. >> This is why we can give unclaimed money back to charity. Why is charity going to prevent fraudulent claims better than money going directly back to the consumer?
Can an insurance company really claim, as Lemonade does, that: the Service Is Available “As Is.” YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT: (a) YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE AND THE PURCHASE AND USE OF ANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ARE ALL AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED AND PRODUCTS ARE SOLD ON AN “AS IS” AND “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LEMONADE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND…
If anyone has gotten far enough with them, I'd love to see their actual insurance contract. I'm too lazy to go pull their state filings.
EDIT: Here's the part that troubles me more -
"GIVEBACK ... our stated intention is to calculate the amount of leftover money by subtracting from the group’s collective premium, our flat fee (currently 20%), the costs of claims, a “rainy day fund” and other insurance expenses like reinsurance – and giving back what’s left (up to 40% of the group’s premiums). ... "
That 20% "flat fee" is about 8% less than the industry standard expense ratio. That's pretty aggressive expense reduction, to the point where I'd wonder if they'll run out of money, or if they plan to write only the most preferred of preferred risk. I know it reads as though a "rainy day fund" and reinsurance are separate items, but a rainy day fund only happens if you run a surplus, and I'd be shocked if anyone is reinsuring this block at reasonable rates unless, again, (very) preferred risk - at which point you wouldn't want or need to reinsure.
I know it sounds odd, but as a startup, I'd be happier as both a potential customer and potential employee (both very hypothetical) if they called it 30% and undershot it. You don't want to run out of money. It's not an industry where you can just fire some employees unless you're really overstaffed, since service level declines drive complaints, and enough complaints and suits put you out of business.
EDIT 2: All of that said, I'm rooting for these guys. This industry needs modernization pretty bad. If they can make their 8% back from process and tech optimization, that's great. I'm not trying to be negative, I really want them to succeed.
I happen to have been looking for renters insurance recently. I signed up immediately after reading the insurance policy terms. They are about as generous as the terms offered by Liberty Mutual, but LM wanted to charge me more than 3x as much, and I had a strange and frustrating conversation with a LM agent that left a bad taste in my mouth. Charity or no charity, it's a great deal. However I made two mistakes. First…
Hey nerdponx! This is Maya from Lemonade ; ) Please send us the correct email address you want us to use for your policy and we'll update it ASAP. Also- you can call Lemonade even if it's not an emergency and someone from our customer care team will answer and help you out. Hope this helps
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not adding 20%, they're charging you a flat 20% and then paying for the policy on the back-end. In that sense, it's like a buyers club for insurance. Lloyd's isn't insuring every Lemonade customer individually, they're insuring the entire Lemonade business, which with enough buy-in becomes a very diversified risk pool.
I'd be really surprised if their entire risk was reinsured; that tends to lead to severe incentive misalignment since they would have every incentive to sell to the riskiest customers they could find.