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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#301

Post by xcv123 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:13 PM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #283

xcv123 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, a company allegedly tasked with helping the public live safely wanted me to, at the time, ask my COVID infected host to waltz in to the doctor's office and spread around a pathogen that could kill patients. Nice. No. That is done over the phone or video chat. Not required to physically attend a doctors appointment in order to obtain a doctors note for COVID infection. It's called telemedicine or virtual consult…

Yes. Here's the actual covered event from the policy: "The Sickness, Injury or death of you, your Family Member, your Traveling Companion or your Service Animal. The Sickness or Injury must first commence while your coverage is in effect under the Policy, must require the in-person treatment by a Physician, and must be so disabling in the written opinion of a Physician as to prevent you from taking your Trip (either…

So if a doctor provides a written note they would reject that note because it was done through a virtual consultation? The doctors note should be sufficient and the fact that it was done virtually should be irrelevant and confidential. How is that legal?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#302

Post by Scoundreller » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:14 PM UTC

lm411 wrote: post #281

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…

Here in British Columbia, our provincially owned insurer (ICBC) saved significant money because of fewer claims during Covid. They even issued a rebate to most drivers. Though they also noted losing some revenue due to fewer or lower premiums being paid. The amount saved was far greater. https://assets.ctfassets.net/nnc41duedoho/BNR4qtOTGPJuyQADtK... I wonder if the difference was largely because of Canada's more str…

And Canadian auto-parts prices are through the roof anyway. If there's a factory-gate price increase/supply issue, there's room for margin compression instead of raising prices. Maybe?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#303

Post by robocat » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:16 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #213

Analemma_ wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> whose value would go to zero at any time No, it wouldn't. It would go down to the value of the land (where a construction is permitted). Nowadays, that's often more than 90% of the price.

> value of the land

Only very approximately - it depends on contextual situation.

We had a ton of uninsurable "as-is" houses after the Christchurch Earthquake. Prices for those houses dropped massively because without a mortgage you only get cash bidders so demand was relatively low compared with supply. The price someone is willing to pay for an as-is property depends on many factors, and it can easily be below land valuation.

Firstly desperate or naive sellers would accept well below the land value. You assume that that there are enough buyers to compete. There were not enough buyers shortly after the quake because not enough had cash so there were very cheap properties. Plus you were buying risk too - you simply couldn't price correctly because there were too many unknowns - when whole suburbs are uninhabitable a new construction is irrelevant. The city population dropped significantly.

You could offer below land value on some properties because you are also purchasing a liability e.g. the council required some houses to be demolished & removed (demolition costs were tens of thousands - and demo companies were busy as fuck).

You might pay a lot more than land value:

• Some places could still be rented (uninsurable is not uninhabitable) so potential income mattered.

• Many places just needed work done - sometimes not much - but often a new foundation e.g. lift house and put in new foundation. New foundations had to be compliant with earthquake strengthening rules so usually very very expensive. The as-is homes were often sold by the insurance companies because they were uneconomic to fix.

I advise everyone to be very careful buying property in suburbs or cities where all houses have common/correlated risks of an event - floods - fire - etcetera. Insurance premiums will rise until it is unaffordable - then all houses will not maintain value. Disclosure: I do live in a flood prone suburb but I can afford to self-insure and most people cannot do that.

Even worse: insurance did not cover the financial losses for many people in the Christchurch Earthquake. Especially small businesses. Then again - many other people ended up with huge payouts and were financially much better off. However even then money is usually a poor substitute for emotional costs.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#304

Post by killingtime74 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:17 PM UTC

medion wrote: post #289

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution t…

(Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government.

Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things.

Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec...

The Privacy Act (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-priv...)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#305

Post by Nifty3929 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:17 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #298

tptacek wrote: post #294

I don't really understand the privacy concern here. To wit: insurers can demand actual inspection of your home when making underwriting decisions. The condition of your house is very much their business. Why is an aerial photograph of your roof, which everybody in the world already has on Google Maps, such a big deal?

The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are sim…

Insurance companies are keen to align risks with premiums. The more accurately they do so, the less volatility they will have. And in the short run, probably more profit as well. This also helps consumers, where lower-risk folks will overpay less, and higher-risk folks will be required to lower their risk or contribute more in premiums.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#306

Post by Nifty3929 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:20 PM UTC

medion wrote: post #289

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution t…

This is not a technology or privacy problem - it's a legislative one. If it's illegal to do X, then it seems reasonable for the gov't to enforce that - the more efficiently the better. And if enforcing it seems wrong, then maybe it shouldn't be a law.

For another toy example, what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just used to fund the police. We only tolerate them because they aren't enforced on us very often as individuals. It's like a medium-skill lottery to see who pays for the police.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#307

Post by imgabe » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:22 PM UTC

_tom_ wrote: post #258

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…

And (c) in the long term influence the risk. Insurance companies have long worked to improve auto safety. This benefits everyone. This needs to be applied to more significant risks, like fire flood and storm. I think we have to get much more serious about prevention. People are doing this: Fire safety: https://www.npr.org/2023/08/24/1195331310/red-roof-house-fir... Storm safety: https://abcnews.go.com/US/mexico-beach…

> This needs to be applied to more significant risks, like fire flood and storm.

It is. The NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency) writes the National Electric Code and other safety codes that get adopted into law as building codes. It was started by a coalition of insurance agencies.

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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#308

Post by SilasX » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:23 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #123

VHRanger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem people have with this is the type of air vehicle used to take the picture

Surprisingly, it seems to me that you are wrong. People will absolutely lose their minds whenever they hear about an unmanned aircraft, but never talk about manned aircraft. There have been tons of news articles about "police drones" an other kinds of scaremongering, that never seem to note that the cops using an airplane to follow you in the dark has been a thing for decades. The only new thing is the pilot does not…

Haha exactly. Same thing for military drone strikes. I've noticed way too much of the debate focused on the "drone" part and not the "hey do you have an adequate process for target selection, civilian review, and consequences for targeting the wrong people?" The specifics of the hardware should be irrelevant to that question.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#309

Post by switch007 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:24 PM UTC

We are sprinting towards a dystopia of "computer says no". Decisions taken affecting your life and finances made by computers delivered by minimum wage powerless staff.

I'm sure healthcare insurance companies are inspired by the actions of the home insurance companies. "you declared you never smoked but our drone footage shows you and a plume of smoke in the same area. The AI detected it as cigarette smoke. Your coverage is cancelled and this is our final decision. "

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#310

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:26 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #298

tptacek wrote: post #294

I don't really understand the privacy concern here. To wit: insurers can demand actual inspection of your home when making underwriting decisions. The condition of your house is very much their business. Why is an aerial photograph of your roof, which everybody in the world already has on Google Maps, such a big deal?

The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are sim…

You (say) have a trampoline. I do not. We share an insurer. Our insurer asked, when you applied, if you had a trampoline. Your trampoline materially increases the risk that insurance is going to have to pay to cover a lawsuit on your property. You lied, and said you didn't. I am now paying to subsidize your trampoline.

Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses? Worrying times... for pirate trampolines!