Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:43 PM UTC

sarchertech wrote: post #318

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?

It’s an issue of scale. Similar to police tracking phones. Police have always been able to assign an officer to follow a suspect, but it’s expensive and therefore rarely done. If insurance companies can cheaply inspect everyone’s house from space, the end result will be to lower prices for people with homes in perfect condition and raise them for everyone else. This is potentially problematic because the people with…

Post by smodo » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:46 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #321

sarchertech wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an issue of scale. Similar to police tracking phones. Police have always been able to assign an officer to follow a suspect, but it’s expensive and therefore rarely done. If insurance companies can cheaply inspect everyone’s house from space, the end result will be to lower prices for people with homes in perfect condition and raise them for everyone else. This is potentially problematic because the people with…

Why is it not a good thing if insurance is more accurately priced? Insurance isn't a redistribution mechanism. And dilapidated roofs aren't a social good. Municipalities have actual redistribution schemes to make these kinds of repairs. I'll note that there's nothing at all redistributive about sneaking a trampoline onto your property, too. Further, I'll note that working class people also take pride in their houses…

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

RomanAlexander wrote: post #315

tptacek wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 trampo…

Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text

Post by NovemberWhiskey » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:49 PM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #264

2four2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently started going through many big data collectors and expressing my rights to know, delete, and stop selling my information. Verisk makes the process notoriously difficult compared to other companies, you have to start an "ethics" report in their ticketing system https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/69464/ind...

Real question: is something like aerial photography of your roof really subject to privacy laws?

Post by imgabe » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 9:51 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.