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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#31

Post by kjkjadksj » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #21

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...)

Insurance incentives would drive them to want to predict as accurately as possible who is going to cost them money, and then deny them coverage. They make money from selling to people who are afraid of a calamity but likely won't experience one.

Why are they in the business of denying coverage? They are insurance. They estimate their payouts from the entire pool and price your premiums accordingly. Paying out should therefore not really affect their bottom line if they price the premiums appropriately.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#32

Post by roywiggins » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

egeozcan wrote: post #11

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…

After reading that, my mind is generating weird scenarios in which undeclared trampolines are causing tragedies. Trampolines can indeed cause accidents but is that big of a risk to have one? That feels so out of place it's beyond comical.

Trampolines break a lot of bones.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/pediatrics/...

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#33

Post by currymj » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:58 PM UTC

mb7733 wrote: post #18

sircastor wrote: post #12

I'm going to assume that nobody's insurance premiums or deductibles are going down from this data. No analysis is making the insurer say "Oh, that roof is in much better condition despite its age." Insurance feels like the biggest scam in the history of the world. You are legally obligated to pay us for nothing, most of the time.

This doesn't make sense. If an insurance company wanted to charge higher premiums, they would just do so. They wouldn't need to spy on customers. The point of them trying to quantify risk as accurately as possible is to be able to extract profit while also offering competitive rates. It's the same as with any other company. They try and operate as efficiently as possible (ie. reduce costs) to try and make more profit…

from reading this article, it seems like there may be some odd short-term pressures, or incentives internal to the companies, that mean policies are getting cancelled based on clearly inaccurate information.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#34

Post by devbent » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

secabeen wrote: post #16

egeozcan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading that, my mind is generating weird scenarios in which undeclared trampolines are causing tragedies. Trampolines can indeed cause accidents but is that big of a risk to have one? That feels so out of place it's beyond comical.

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.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#35

Post by rrix2 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

mb7733 wrote: post #27

jcims wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at the limit, the size of the pool is one...you.

Accurately pricing insurance doesn't reduce the size of the pool. When you buy insurance, you aren't just pooling risk with other customers with the exact same risk profile as yourself. You're pooling with all customers of the company. (Plus all customers of any reinsurance company, etc.)

It's not being individually priced, people at higher risks are being forced out of their insurance options leaving only low-risk individuals priced in! Non-renewal isn't just some rate adjustment

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#36

Post by dmoy » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 3:59 PM UTC

time0ut wrote: post #30

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.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#37

Post by gjsman-1000 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 4:00 PM UTC

5 years ago, a family friend got an angry letter from the city because he had cleared slightly too much lakefront weeds (and by slightly - I mean very lightly, enough to anger the algorithm lightly). How did they know? Drone. And this was suburban Minnesota.

Not even insurance - this was the city of Newport on a power rampage. Turns out there’s also no shortage of general corruption in the police department…

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/footage-shows-newp...

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#38

Post by p1esk » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 4:01 PM UTC

throwaway74432 wrote: post #19

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…

My insurer jacks up the rate even with the tracking device. The rate more than doubled in the last 3 years.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#39

Post by dmoy » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 4:01 PM UTC

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.

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.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#40

Post by gjsman-1000 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 4:01 PM UTC

throwaway74432 wrote: post #19

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…

One of us needs to win a lottery; and force (er, strongly incentivize) Congress to pass a law banning the lowering of insurance prices based on tracking devices.