41–50 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
same
Hey, same here. Can you share more details? Thanks for letting us know btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that we're a fully regulated insurance company (as opposed to brokers like Guevara or other p2p insurance startups). It means that we can control the experience end to end and build an insurance company with a different business model than how traditional insurance companies do business. This is why we can give unclaimed money back to charity.
Why not give unclaimed money back to the consumer? Like a mutual insurance company, wouldnt that dissaude more folks from filing fraudulent* claims?
It looks like these are the companies that are really insuring you: Lloyd’s of London, Berkshire Hathaway’s National Indemnity, XL Catlin etc. Basically they are buying a policy from one of those companies adding 20% and selling it to you. A insurance company works by spreading risk over a large area. By selling everything in NY they are increasing their correlation which raises risk. One of the reasons for the sub p…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not give unclaimed money back to the consumer? Like a mutual insurance company, wouldnt that dissaude more folks from filing fraudulent* claims?
Not sure it would (it doesn't really for mutuals...)
>> 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?
This is wildly un-new. Mutual insurance companies have existed for literally hundreds of years. Oldest one I can find in 5 minutes dates to 1762, and if you include merchant insurance organizations, probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equitable_Life_Assurance_S...
Daniel from Lemonade here. Totally understand how P2P can be confusing as a term. What we mean by it is that we use each group's premiums to pay their claims, with leftover money going back to the group's common cause. To us P2P is a shorthand for: 'it's not our money'!
So using pension plans as an analogy, it's more like a pay as you go pension scheme, like Social Security, than a fully funded scheme where the capital is invested and the returns from investment pay expected payouts.
I guess the distinction is that since the leftover money is used to donate to causes, there's no buffer to handle any unusual payments in the scheme itself, and the scheme is insolvent immediately in any month where claims exceed payments. So any buffer has to come from the reinsurance contract, or from any equity capital invested in the entity writing the insurance contracts.
Is this accurate? Really interested if you tell me a little more about how you handle risk here.
I got to "enter your name" and leaked out of the funnel. I'm willing to give up my zip code to find out how you compare to my current provider. Give me some good rates to entice me out of the rest of my data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That comment wasn't about a bug. This person is saying that you require too much information to get a quote. And I agree.
The fact that @gilsadis didn't understand this this suggests to me that they are in entirely the wrong business.
With So-Sure you link up with friends and are bonused if nobody claims. Of course that means nobody links with that friend that always loses their phone, which in theory reduces their risk and pays for the bonus.
I got to "enter your name" and leaked out of the funnel. I'm willing to give up my zip code to find out how you compare to my current provider. Give me some good rates to entice me out of the rest of my data.