Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:02 PM UTC

wbl wrote: post #249

DSMan195276 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every state requires you to hold some minimum level of car insurance, mortgages require a level of homeowners insurance, etc. The underlying problem is that it's a significant barrier for people if they get priced out of the market (even if it's for good reason). If you can't afford car insurance or no insurers will offer it to you then you legally cannot drive a car, and in the US that becomes a problem that spirals…

If you are such a risk when driving no insurer will touch you, I would like you off the road.

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:02 PM UTC

drekipus wrote: post #322

tptacek wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't insurance entirely a redistribution mechanism?

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:06 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #338

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?

I think the issue is that in some cases the information is inaccurate and there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information. To the extent that the information is accurate, I agree. If you make an agreement with a company and buy insurance based on your statement that you don't have a pool, but then you do have a pool, I don't see any reason w…

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

wombatpm wrote: post #340

worik wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 want money to come in and never go out. If they could they would sell life insurance to dead people and homeowners insurance to the homeless.

Post by ahtihn » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

Nifty3929 wrote: post #306

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 use…