Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images • Hacker News Board

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#201

Post by Vic-Bhatia » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

brogrammernot wrote: post #69

landedgentry wrote: post #17

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.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

Hi, This is a very informative post. I am trying to learn more about how the insurance industry works. Would you be open to sharing any resources (websites, books etc) that teach the 0 to 1 of insurance? Or can I DM you with a couple of questions? Thanks!

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#202

Post by t0mas88 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #61

dylan604 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

rules are rules. you complaining about this is like football fans complaining about the tight offside calls.

Imagine if I put cameras all over a city that charged you $10 every time you exceeded the speed limit by 1 MPH. With an additional $10 fee for each additional MPH measure over the limit. Also, this is per camera, so if you pass 6 cameras on your commute going 70 in a 65, you’re getting a $300 penalty. Rules are rules.

You're quite accurately describing traffic enforcement in Switzerland and recently larger Belgian cities.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#203

Post by twoodfin » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:34 PM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #152

twoodfin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should any seller have to justify their prices? Just don’t buy their policy, buy someone else’s.

Insurance in general is more heavily regulated than this. There are a few reasons: because society doesn't want these companies racing to the bottom on price and leaving their customers high and dry when the catastrophe does hit, because society finds insurance pricing based on certain personal aspects, such as race, odious, and because the government mandates some types of coverage and they don't want to let insurer…

While it’s certainly accurate insurance is a regulated industry, nothing you listed explains why it’s a good idea to allow government to set or approve rates vs. ameliorating those social concerns through other means.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#204

Post by edflsafoiewq » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #71

mb7733 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would insurance being individually priced negate its value? The benefit of insurance is the pooling of the risk. The more individually it is priced, the more efficiently it works. (Not that I'm a fan of insurers spying on their customers from the sky...)

The insurance paradox. If you can price every risk precisely, meaning the variance on your prediction is zero, there's no point to insurance because it would be the same as a savings account. There's no pooling of risk at all.

Even if you know the probability of an event precisely, you still don't know if it will actually occur. And even if you know it will actually occur, you still don't know when, so insurance still provides diffusion over time.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#205

Post by brogrammernot » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:35 PM UTC

trogdor wrote: post #138

brogrammernot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

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?)

Premiums is what I’m referencing, yeah.

So, it’s a complex thing but the state has a vested interest in drivers being insured because of state / federal funding for roads, infrastructure and all of that.

The original intent was to stop humans from being greedy assholes and to provide a stick for when they messed up. Without the states involvement, insurance would likely go the way of used auto with “buy here pay here” lots which is a net negative for the state & society as a whole.

They want to make sure that “fair” prices are set so that there isn’t an overly disproportionate amount of people who need the insurance not having insurance. In reality, the less risky drivers do for all intents and purposes help off-set the cost of the more risky people but all of that is hidden in the premium logic.

At the end of the day, what has happened though is the state’s regulatory group overstepping their bounds (in my opinion) and ignoring good faith proposals with data showing why rate increases are needed which leads to situations we’re in now.

Having been in that world (I left it) I can honestly say there has to be some regulations or regulatory body because a lot of these folks spend so much time looking at numbers (actuarial science in general) they forget the fact there are humans behind those numbers.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#206

Post by sgerenser » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:37 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #7

Undeclared trampolines? What kind of insurance is this? I don't remember my house insurance (or medical, or any other kind really) being this detailed. I just picked rough estimates for the value of my structure and the items inside, and that was about it? There might have also been a waiver about not doing any hazardous activities like open fires or storing chemicals on the property. It definitely wasn't this detail…

Last insurance quote I got asked about trampolines, playground structures, dog breed, known risks like aluminum wiring or polybutylene piping, whether all doors had deadbolts, distance from nearest fire hydrant, and probably a dozen other things like this.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#207

Post by toast0 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #134

toast0 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Side note here on how ludicrous it is that you can substitute a $35,000 bond for a real insurance policy, given the likelihood that any driver is going to cause losses far in excess of $35,000.

Minimum insurance in California only covers the same $35,000. $15,000 for injuries to one person, $30,000 for injuries to multiple people, and $5,000 for property damage.

It's completely insufficient, but it's not nothing. A reasonable person would carry much more insurance.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#208

Post by selectodude » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #162

bvan wrote: post #92

Insurance works on the basis of (a) quantifying risk and (b) charging fairly for the protection. In the long-term, getting better at (a) and consequently, (b), is in everybody’s interest. For far too long, certain risk covers have been under-charged. At the end of the day, difficulty in finding affordable insurance, or any insurance at all, tells you something about the level of risk and the ability of insurers to ch…

If this were true, health insurers would have taken a cudgel to the US hospital system decades ago and come up with a more efficient system. They haven't because an opaque system allows them to maintain their own opaque practices.

Health insurance companies don’t care about what your doctor earns in the same way home insurance companies don’t care about the cost of the roofer. They’re going to price in whatever that cost may be and call it a day.

Health insurance has it easier too because there’s not really a concept of correlated risk in human populations. Most people do a decent job avoiding hurting themselves but when a flood comes, there’s not a whole lot anybody can do.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#209

Post by brogrammernot » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

Vic-Bhatia wrote: post #201

brogrammernot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

Hi, This is a very informative post. I am trying to learn more about how the insurance industry works. Would you be open to sharing any resources (websites, books etc) that teach the 0 to 1 of insurance? Or can I DM you with a couple of questions? Thanks!

Yeah, sure shoot me a DM and when I’m back later at my computer I have some.

I didn’t deal much on commercial insurance btw, I have _some_ awareness of that.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#210

Post by Kon-Peki » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 7:39 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #161

trogdor wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective...

There are mutual insurance companies [1], including the largest insurance company in the US (State Farm). At the end of every year, if the amount of money left over exceeds the formula they have set, every policyholder gets a refund.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance