Live data from Hacker News

Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

insurancejournal.com

71–80 of 241 posts

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#71
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unhelpful and tone-deaf response. I don't think anyone is "surprised" that companies act in their own self-interest. If they are surprised by anything, it's that the system that made mandatory the concept of insurance for a dignified, modern life (what we name in shorthand as "the economy") continues to allow for rug-pulling of this magnitude which obviously results in net-negative outcomes for society as…

When the world is rapidly changing what do you expect to happen? Systems collapse. It’s inevitable.

What is your angle exactly? It's hard to understand the underpinnings of your perspective here.

Systems do sometimes collapse, but I would prefer to look at it as "we are smart enough to study these systems and act in the social best interest when failure is imminent or has already happened, and responsible enough to work to improve the society that makes our lives possible."

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! > Assume 1 claim per customer per decade Herein lies the problem in some parts of Florida/California. If Florida gets hu…

> Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! There are a few things you can do to dramatically reduce the fraud risk. Take the video of the damage immediately and through your own app. Now you can confirm with decent certainty the where/when of the incident and stop double-claims. You can also refuse to pay for any damage unseen in the video. No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hur…

Ah yes, make the insured pay out of pocket first. Brilliant. Too poor to buy a new car to replace the one that just got legitimately totaled? Gotcha!

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#73
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people surprised when a company operates in its’ own best interest? Why should we expect anything else? Insurance companies are just about moving dollars around and hedging risk. Being perturbed about this is like being mad about your dog barking at the mailman. If someone said I’m going to start free climbing the tallest buildings in the world - but I need insurance - the company will tell you to get lost be…

> An insurance company is not a charity it’s just a profit engine. Odd then that so many forms of insurance are mandated by the government.

Suppose you are an insurer. You model the risk for your insurance product (suppose it's car insurance) and realize you need to charge $100/mo to make money after paying out all the claims. However, you have a competitor that is bad at modeling risk. They are charging $50/mo for their car insurance, and customers are flocking to them. Should you attempt to stay in this market? If you lower your prices, you will eventually get knocked out; if you keep them high, you will not get any customers.

Alternatively, suppose cars become super risky and you need to charge $10,000 a month to insure the car, and reasonably conclude that no one is going to pay that, and after you pay for marketing and overhead and payroll, you will still lose money if you try to sell the insurance product. Do you stay in the market?

It's especially funny to see everyone in the comments complaining that the insurance company is "only thinking about the short term".

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! > Assume 1 claim per customer per decade Herein lies the problem in some parts of Florida/California. If Florida gets hu…

> Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! There are a few things you can do to dramatically reduce the fraud risk. Take the video of the damage immediately and through your own app. Now you can confirm with decent certainty the where/when of the incident and stop double-claims. You can also refuse to pay for any damage unseen in the video. No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hur…

> No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hurt at the time, it isn't going to be covered.

This would likely lead to an overwhelming wave of lawsuits. Soft tissue injuries can often have a delayed onset.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your advice comes across as that of someone who may not have experienced either side of an insurance claim.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nearly every customer should be able to use an entirely automated online form for signing up and for making insurance claims. Claims should be settled entirely with the customer uploading a 1 minute video showing what damage occurred, plus the bill to fix it. Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! > Assume 1 claim per customer per decade Herein lies the problem in some parts of Florida/California. If Florida gets hu…

> Ah yes, the perfect recipe for fraud! There are a few things you can do to dramatically reduce the fraud risk. Take the video of the damage immediately and through your own app. Now you can confirm with decent certainty the where/when of the incident and stop double-claims. You can also refuse to pay for any damage unseen in the video. No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hur…

>Take the video of the damage immediately and through your own app. Now you can confirm with decent certainty the where/when of the incident and stop double-claims. You can also refuse to pay for any damage unseen in the video. No more "I hurt my back" type claims weeks later - unless you said your back hurt at the time, it isn't going to be covered.

This noticeably doesn't stop you from purposefully damaging your home for an insurance payout. If I take a video of the damage to my roof right after I knock a tree over onto it, I would get a new roof paid for by an insurance company.

>Next, you require the user upload all the receipts they are claiming before you'll pay them a cent. This means that users will typically repair stuff 'on the cheap', rather than using very expensive repair/rebuild services that they'd use if they knew for sure insurance would be paying.

Seems like a recipe for builders to overcharge the insurance company. Unless you're suggesting that homeowners physically pay for the repairs before submitting the claim, which (for obvious reasons) is prohibitively unaffordable in most cases where you'd want to use insurance.

>Third, you either pay avery claim in full, or not at all. If you find any evidence of fraud, you don't do a partial payout.

You better have a great legal team, because you'll be getting sued a lot. In addition, you'll have very limited evidence to prove fraud (as you didn't have anyone visit the site of the damage, didn't have anyone negotiating the price with the construction company, etc.)

Combine it all together and you'll be paying out a lot of fraudulent claims. You'll also be losing a lot of lawsuits where you don't have enough evidence of fraud.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#76
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing to sue over since there is no law that says a business cannot reduce expenses for the purpose of reducing expenses.

I think you mean there is nothing that they would likely lose a suit over. There is plenty to sue over. Statistically, are the laid-off employees older, more male/female, or more minority representative than the national workforce? Were any verbal promises of no layoffs or ongoing work made by anyone to any employee in those states? Do any municipalities in those states have unique notification other laws around layo…

[deleted]

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#77

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

What they are really saying is that they can’t effectively model the risk. Say you were an insurer… would you want to take risk for Florida hurricane losses knowing what we know? If we want a functional insurance market in these places, we need a student loan type solution - make the Feds the reinsurer and have the insurance company mostly administer the policy.

Floridians who want me to shoulder the bill for insuring their beachfront property against hurricane damage can go to hell. Pay for the insurance yourself or move to a place where disasters aren’t common.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#78

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

What they are really saying is that they can’t effectively model the risk. Say you were an insurer… would you want to take risk for Florida hurricane losses knowing what we know? If we want a functional insurance market in these places, we need a student loan type solution - make the Feds the reinsurer and have the insurance company mostly administer the policy.

There already is a federal program for uninsurable properties (for flooding only, I believe). They take whatever insurers reject. By my understanding, people just keep building on the same spot, even if it floods constantly, therefore they are a huge drain on the program.

I don’t see a solution honestly. With global warming large parts of the world will become uninsurable. And we shouldn’t expect insurance companies/the government to carry that burden just because someone decided to live there.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#79

All I see in the article is the discussion of "profits". I would think the PR department could come up with something about "trying to keep costs competitive for our customers" or something like that. Instead they're telling California and Florida customers to take a hike ... along with 11% of their employees. When is the last time we heard a company enact a company-wide, 50% cut in officer's salaries and a freeze on…

What they are really saying is that they can’t effectively model the risk. Say you were an insurer… would you want to take risk for Florida hurricane losses knowing what we know? If we want a functional insurance market in these places, we need a student loan type solution - make the Feds the reinsurer and have the insurance company mostly administer the policy.

If the free market can't insure a risk, at any price, then maybe no one should be taking that risk.

Or at least they ought to be left to fend for themselves if they suffer losses due to that.

Re: Farmers Insurance Laying Off 11% of Workforce, Citing Industry Challenges

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be great for investors if the top positions were paid mostly / entirely in stock. That way we can entice a good CEO with high pay and our interests will still align.

That leads to short term thinking and pumping of stocks, often done by firing R&D and maintenance people.

A major example of this was the decline of Intel (that they are trying to reverse) that was driven by an inane diversion of $$ by accountants who spent billions on 'share buybacks' instead of R&D = the inexorable fall from grace. I have never understood this buyback philosophy and spoke against it(my whispers in a hurricane). It was done to increase the share price - it failed, buckets with no bottoms are hard to fill. Intel now has the chips program they now hope will fill the bucket - they should spend more on the bottom. TBF to Intel, they have stopped the BB and have (hopefully) repaired the bucket and might regain their lost stature. I see another bad act in the form of patent 'mining', a high brow form of trolling.
Post reply on HN