Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So thieves broke into your storage unit again

oldvcr.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 317 posts

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#31

Post by icehawk »

saulrh wrote: post #7

If you use the disc lock the storage facility sells, you'll likely pay an additional markup on it, but it's also guaranteed to be acceptable to their partner insurance company. I'm surprised - I'd have expected the facility's locks to be guaranteed to be unacceptable so as to minimize the insurance company's payouts. Insurance agencies already do worse on a daily basis, this level of consumer-hostile bullshit would b…

If they are deemed unacceptable, I now get to make the argument of negligence on the part of the storage facility, as they are the ones who sold it to me and I can reasonably assume that since they suggested it, and the insurance policy, that it is fit for purpose. I might then be able to make the case of fraud.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#34

Post by dataflow »

eastbound wrote: post #25
Spivak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered how expensive a good insurance policy is. One that is actually good for you the policy holder and enforced by contract. Like no haggling over market value because the items are insured for specific amounts.

The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives, the result is our current society.

> The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives

Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#36

Post by zabzonk »

dataflow wrote: post #34
eastbound wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives, the result is our current society.

> The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?

depends on the premium, obviously

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#37

Post by praptak »

lazide wrote: post #14
Terr_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper and legally-viable to store your collection of electronic burglar alarms. Especially if they dial a human when triggered. There are some neat videos out there where people make their own with Arduinos etc.

How about (accidentally) still charged high voltage capacitors?

Where I live the "accidental" part doesn't really get you off the hook. Negligence is better than intention but still.

If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. You also have to think about the fully legal situations when it's firefighter or a cop with a warrant. Or an edge case like a stupid kid.

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#39

Post by dataflow »

zabzonk wrote: post #36
dataflow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?

depends on the premium, obviously

What depends on the premium? In my mind, you state the item and the value, they tell you the premium they would cover it at. Where's the perverse incentive, and why is it relevant what anybody else would pay for it?

Re: So thieves broke into your storage unit again

#40

Post by lotsofpulp »

komali2 wrote: post #23
Simulacra wrote: post #2

This is heartbreaking. The storage facility insurance scam is one that needs to be investigated by the government. It's a tremendous rip off and covers nothing.

I wonder if an insurance company operated as a co-op would be a better arrangement. Interested parties pooling money to pay out to the one unfortunate one who has a disaster. Could potentially invest the pool in super low risk investments as well for a little upside.

Mutual insurance companies have been a thing for hundreds of years. Some well known US mutual insurance companies are State Farm, Amica, Mutual of Omaha, and most non Elevance Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliated insurance companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

Post reply on HN