I'm not sure the degree to which insurance companies are legally allowed to share information such as aerial photographs with each other. When I worked at Google I knew a developer who was building a prototype service similar to Google Flights, except for auto and home insurance. I don't think that product ever shipped. The dev on that team told me that a key thing they learned while doing the analysis is that the op…
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.
Nobody can be forced to insure you if they don't want to. I learned that on CNBC the other day, here's the segment talking about the state of home insurance in US.
Except when those companies have lobbied to create laws to make the use of their industry mandatory.
Car insurance isn't mandatory; proof of financial responsibility is. In California, you can get a compliant insurance policy, deposit $35k with the DMV, setup a compliant $35k bond, or a self-insurance certificate which requires a larger deposit and is really for commercial motor vehicle carriers. I don't think it's unreasonable to require means to pay for damages when operating a motor vehicle; it doesn't take much…
Fair, but there are lots of places, like Canada which require some types of insurance by law.
Why are insurance rates regulated by the government? I understand that the state has a strong interest in ensuring that insurance companies are adequately capitalized, but I don’t understand the state interest in directly regulating premium prices. (Or is that not what you are referring to?)
Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective (administered by the state) does to soften any misfortune that hits any of its members?
What I saw was "supply chain got more expensive so $/claim went up and is outpacing premiums".
Many industries are regulated and have to provide good faith justifications for price increases. The burden of proof is on them, not the service recipient.
I’m not sure you read my post then as it explains I’ve seen first-hand actual loss data because of supply chain & other costs leading to an unprofitable offering being denied by the state without any valid rationale other than “he didn’t see any cars outside his window”.
The point is that regulators have not been allowing rate increases with good faith justifications for years and now that they see their actions have caused companies to pull out they’re pointing the finger at the companies when it’s their poor judgment for years coming to fruition.
Why are insurance rates regulated by the government? I understand that the state has a strong interest in ensuring that insurance companies are adequately capitalized, but I don’t understand the state interest in directly regulating premium prices. (Or is that not what you are referring to?)
Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective (administered by the state) does to soften any misfortune that hits any of its members?
In some places and markets it is – I believe if you live in British Columbia basic vehicle insurance is done through the province.
Except when those companies have lobbied to create laws to make the use of their industry mandatory.
I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any states where you are required by law to have home insurance. The issue is that banks won't underwrite a mortgage for an uninsured house, because without insurance it's a completely unsecured asset whose value would go to zero at any time. (And if a bank won't write a new mortgage for it, the value drops dramatically even if it's already paid off, because now the poten…
You are not wrong at all.
Home insurance isn't mandatory, but refinancing your mortgage is impossibile without one.
It is...kind of. But we're talking about severely limiting the ability of insurers to distinguish high risk parties from low risk parties and price accordingly. When the insured parties have limited agency over the risk they present — as with, e.g., health insurance for congenital diseases — this kind of regulation can make sense. But when insured parties can control the risk, such regulation usually makes insurance…
We already have this problem with car insurance in California. In the 1980s, at the tail end of a long series of stupid initiative ballot measures, Californians wrote down that there are only 2 strata of risk: good drivers, and everyone else. "Good Driver" is defined as a person who has had a license for 3 years without killing or injuring anyone. Because of this, California is the only American state where the law requires that a middle-aged person who drives a base model Honda Fit, and a 19-year-old with a Dodge Hellcat who miraculously hasn't killed anyone, yet, that we know of, both get the same "discount". And consequently it is unlawful here to offer those telematics systems that charge less to good drivers and more to bad ones.
> I thought risk pooling was the point? The point is pooling unpredictable risk. You don't know ahead of time if your house is going to flood. You do know ahead of time if your house is on a flood plane. Therefore, people with houses on a flood plane pay more for flood insurance. The alternative is that low risk customers can't get insurance because they'd have to pay the same as high risk customers and that isn't wo…
> The point is pooling unpredictable risk. This is important point about knowledge which I feel leads towards another kind of hazard: Which party is capable of predicting risk and how that information asymmetry may be exploited. We already spend a lot of time thinking about one direction, where the insured hides a pre-existing condition or their nefarious plan to commit arson, or whatever. But what about the other di…
That is the problem solved by competition. If insurers know that your risk is below average then they'll want your business and therefore want to underbid other insurers in order to get it. But so will the other insurers, until your premium comes down to reflect your risk. This works even if you don't know your own risk because all you have to do is pick the most attractive price.
Of course, if you don't have enough competition that doesn't work, but then your problem is that you don't have enough competition. Which, especially in insurance markets, is generally caused by regulatory barriers.