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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#371

Post by skissane » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #365

skissane wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insu…

This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.

We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tell them.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#372

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:40 PM UTC

shepherdjerred wrote: post #256

dragonwriter wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would insurance being individually priced negate its value? Perfectly accurate insurance pricing would be for each policy to cost exactly the amount of covered losses in the period covered plus the overhead of managing the insurance, which obviously would be pointless.

That wouldn't be pointless, because you would have a predictable expense instead of an unpredictable expense. What you're describing is actually the ideal scenario for both individuals and companies.

> That wouldn't be pointless, because you would have a predictable expense instead of an unpredictable expense. What you're describing is actually the ideal scenario for both individuals and companies

No, if the expense were that predictable, the best case would be dispense with insurance entirely, since it effects the cost not at all and imposes overhead, especially insurance where the rates are accurately computed over short periods.

Without uncertainty, there is no point in insurance.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#373

Post by dbg31415 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:46 PM UTC

I think this is fine, BUT...

I think they should have to give people time to fix the problem before dropping them.

A neighbor literally just got a letter in the mail, "We think your trees are over your roof. Policy cancelled immediately." (The tree was over his daughter's playhouse in the back yard, the algorithm saw shingles obstructed by a tree branch and flagged it. They don't even bother with human review.)

There should be a warning period, "Hey we saw this, and if you don't fix it in 90 days we'll have to drop you." They certainly take money before doing an inspection... they're happy to have you start paying them right away as soon as you move in. Anyway there should be a time period for cut off of service.

Insurance companies are free to do inspections, but there's still the stress that getting a notice like that does to someone.

These days, who even reads letters from insurance companies in the mail?! I mean, I just chuck anything with a logo in the recycling.

And, from what I can tell, the insurance company dropped my neighbor when they sent the letter... so he didn't even know he wasn't insured until he got the letter.

Anyway... these companies aren't your friends. They're all out to screw you.

USAA screwed me over bad recently, to the tune of nearly $300k... they forced me to use their contractor (or we won't cover your temp housing), said not to worry and promised me a "5 year workmanship warranty" on the work done by their contractor... but when the contractor was utter shit, they put me through their mediation, where their mediator said, "Yeah all this work done by the contractor is junk, it all has to be re-done... if they don't fix it, we'll eat their lunch!" but ultimately they didn't enforcing any of that with the contractor and let the contractor off without any consequences -- even insisted I pay the contractor. "Oh you had no right to expect the work would be professionally done..." the contractor said in court. It was all total BS. And they said, "USAA may promise you one thing, but contract we have means we aren't liable for any damages to your house, 35-foot trees we killed, foundations we cracked, garage doors we backed into, things our endless stream of disorganized day-laborers stole, etc..." USAA's mediation process was really just a play to run out the statue of limitations on the contract too, I felt. =P

Live and learn... but insurance companies are heartless bastards. You can't trust them, and even the "good" ones will screw you if they can. Tell you one thing, and do another...

If you have a flood, call your lawyer first, the insurance company second, and the water mitigation folks third. Get it all in writing, take more photos than you ever thought necessary, and hope you have an adjuster who isn't having a crappy day that day.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#374

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:48 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #371

tptacek wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.

We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tel…

Look, I hear you, but at some point this has to be on you. The CPSC has a thing dedicated to trampolines. The Mayo Clinic has articles about it. It is a huge cause of injuries of minors around the country. I'll grant that this is slightly more obscure an issue than swimming pools, but there are tons of swimming pool buyers who would make similar claims ("nobody told me swimming pools were that risky, this is just fine print mumbo jumbo"), and I don't think anyone here would entertain those.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#375

Post by pants2 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:51 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…

Last time I was shopping for home insurance, an agent told me I was too close to a canyon, which I thought was strange because there are no canyons near me. They sent me a screenshot of the fire danger map where clearly it had the wrong location / coordinates for my address (they thought I was about a mile from where I really live).

I pointed them to my address on Google Maps which has my correct location, but they said their system isn't wrong and the address coordinate mapping can't be changed anyway. Go away.

Then another insurance company told me the same thing. I thought maybe I was going to be uninsurable completely based off of a computer error.

Luckily, Lemonade has smarter systems and got my location right, so I was able to get insured with them. But I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#376

Post by IggleSniggle » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:51 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #351

> If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, It amazes me that people in the US would even consider installing a roof that would only last 20 years. In the UK, you wouldn't consider reroofing anything that your grandparents remember being installed. Ie. Stuff doesn't get reroofed till it's 100 years old. Even then, you'll normally inspect and only replace the damaged bits. My 350 year old…

If you think that's wild, consider that the standard practice in Japan is to buy land and build new...even if that means tearing down the building that is currently built there. As a result, buildings are built more according to the rules of fashion, and building to last longer than the current occupant would seem like a foolhardy waste of money.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#377

Post by duped » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:52 PM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #351

> If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, It amazes me that people in the US would even consider installing a roof that would only last 20 years. In the UK, you wouldn't consider reroofing anything that your grandparents remember being installed. Ie. Stuff doesn't get reroofed till it's 100 years old. Even then, you'll normally inspect and only replace the damaged bits. My 350 year old…

No one is building homes to last 150 years in the United States, and very rarely do people want to buy homes built a century ago.

Where I live we call a century-old home a "tear down" because it's probably in horrible condition. There are a handful in my neighborhood but they get sold at a discount, usually for new construction.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#378

Post by skissane » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #374

skissane wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tel…

Look, I hear you, but at some point this has to be on you. The CPSC has a thing dedicated to trampolines. The Mayo Clinic has articles about it. It is a huge cause of injuries of minors around the country. I'll grant that this is slightly more obscure an issue than swimming pools, but there are tons of swimming pool buyers who would make similar claims ("nobody told me swimming pools were that risky, this is just fin…

Well, I'm not in America, and I'm wondering if this is an American thing?

I just checked my insurance policy. The word "trampoline" never once occurs in it. I don't think my insurer cares about trampolines.

If I think about it: given the absurdly large payouts for some injury lawsuits in the US, I understand why American insurers might be particularly sensitive to things that might induce injury, like trampolines. Given Australian courts tend to be much more modest in the damages they award, I can see why Australian insurers might not see them as something worth paying any special attention to.

Also, even in the US: it might seem obvious to someone who grew up there, but for an immigrant from a country with a different insurance system, it wouldn’t be obvious

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#379

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:53 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #345

imgabe wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They can generally decline coverage for any reason, for what it's worth; they could cancel without aerial footage just on the hunch that you didn't replace your roof, or they could mass-mail their customers demanding proof of roof replacements. (The article and other things I'm reading suggest that cancellations are because footage finds trampolines and pools --- in which case I don't even understand how anybody can…

[deleted]

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#380

Post by sologoub » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:55 PM UTC

EligibleDecoy wrote: post #362

londons_explore wrote: post #351

> If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, It amazes me that people in the US would even consider installing a roof that would only last 20 years. In the UK, you wouldn't consider reroofing anything that your grandparents remember being installed. Ie. Stuff doesn't get reroofed till it's 100 years old. Even then, you'll normally inspect and only replace the damaged bits. My 350 year old…

It’s called “money.” That is the reason. Slate roofs are common in the UK, and using synthetic slate is $7-12/sqft, whereas bitumen/asphalt shingles which are common in the USA cost $0.50-$1.00/sqft. Average home in the USA is 2,200 sq ft with a roof size of 1,700 sq ft. So $1,700 vs $11,900 is quite a difference (and that was being most generous, excluding installation costs, etc) So basically, average person who ow…

Materials may cost that, but you are not getting a roof replaced for $1,700. Maybe $17,000 and even then it’s pushing it on the coasts especially. Labor and other overhead costs have really gone up and contractors don’t want to deal with small jobs. Sad really.

I’ve never seen slate roofs in California, so not sure if these are to code here. We looked at metal and other materials, but the problem is the weight is different, so now you are engaging an engineer to evaluate structure, submitting plans, dealing with code updates. Or just new asphalt shingles every 15-20 years. The payoff isn’t there and folks don’t tend to keep houses for generations, unlike in the UK.