41–50 of 712 posts
I'm less concerned about the spying and more concerned about insurance companies arbitrarily non-renewing policies with no recourse for the consumer. Insurance is heavily regulated for good reason, and insurance should be a source of stability instead of anxiety.
How else are execs going to pay for that third vacation home?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can afford to rebuild your house after a fire, there will be no point (and there never was a point). Insurance has always been a negative-EV trade for the average person, but there have been mispricings that make it positive-EV when you have more information than the insurance company. However, the inefficiency meant that you also had to pay for the uncertainty on their estimate of your risk. With less uncerta…
Plus the salaries of the sales teams and the marketing budget and the executive bonuses and fancy offices… or were you rolling all that up into “cost to assess”?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally yes, because the liability for injury would be on you, as the trampoline owner. Compare the probability of a guest breaking their leg when visiting your home vs if you have an unsafe trampoline. Insurers are prepared for the small risk in the former, but have not priced in the latter risk to a standard policy.
Trampolines are obscenely high risk and injuries are very common. On top of that, if a neighborhood kid comes in to your yard and breaks their leg on your trampoline, your home owners insurance is going to be involved.
I'm less concerned about the spying and more concerned about insurance companies arbitrarily non-renewing policies with no recourse for the consumer. Insurance is heavily regulated for good reason, and insurance should be a source of stability instead of anxiety.
But, profits. How else are execs going to pay for that third vacation home?
Insurance is a borderline scam. You have to have it by law or in case the worst happens. When the worst does happen get ready for a fight as they will do everything they can legally do to wriggle out.
You don't have to have home insurance by law, at least not in the US If you don't own your house outright, the bank that owns part of it may require insurance as a prerequisite for loaning you money.
I've long said that one major threat that "regular people" would suffer from the consumer surveillance industry was going to be insurance (another being fine-grained price discrimination). It looks like both are really starting to come into swing. The best time for US privacy legislation (including something analogous to the GDPR) was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
Insurance is a borderline scam. You have to have it by law or in case the worst happens. When the worst does happen get ready for a fight as they will do everything they can legally do to wriggle out.
You don't have to have home insurance by law, at least not in the US If you don't own your house outright, the bank that owns part of it may require insurance as a prerequisite for loaning you money.
Related, my vehicle insurer keeps jacking up the rates. I've never been in an accident or had a ticket, and I drive 2000 miles per year. But every year up up up. Then they offer I install a tracking device on my car to get my rates back down to a reasonable amount. There seems to be a pattern of insurers wanting to know everything about everyone, and using irrationally higher rates to coerce consent. And I have to pa…
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv...
My opinion is that the opt-in hardware might have afforded you some discount, maybe. I doubt the same is true for the manufacturer-insurer relationship. I think that pattern is probably more likely to establish a higher baseline for all drivers, and the presence of data can only ever (1) maintain the baseline or (2) harm you.
I'm less concerned about the spying and more concerned about insurance companies arbitrarily non-renewing policies with no recourse for the consumer. Insurance is heavily regulated for good reason, and insurance should be a source of stability instead of anxiety.
It's a stressful situation for many property owners. They may not realize the impact that recent high inflation has had on repair costs, especially when prices tend to spike up higher after major disasters.
I'm less concerned about the spying and more concerned about insurance companies arbitrarily non-renewing policies with no recourse for the consumer. Insurance is heavily regulated for good reason, and insurance should be a source of stability instead of anxiety.
Do you live in CA? In recent years that's the majority of arbitrary cancellations I've heard about - companies pulling entirely out of CA.