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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#381

Post by sarchertech » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:57 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…

I’m not arguing what insurance should be I’m merely talking about the end result of this technology.

I guarantee you income is correlated with state of home repair. If insurance companies can more easily access state of repair, lower income individuals will end up paying more than they did previously.

Regardless of whether that is fair, it is a change from the status quo, and it’s obvious why some people would consider that problematic.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#382

Post by rvba » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:57 PM UTC

hikingsimulator wrote: post #356

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…

The weather in the US can be wild compared to what Western Europe is used to. England doesn't have to deal with the same events.

Those Ukrainian concrete buildings can take a bomb and still stand...

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#383

Post by vba616 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:58 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…

That sounds very nice. What would a competitive rent for your house be? Is it near London?

For Americans who don't know anything about housing in the UK, there is an interesting article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house

Being Wikipedia in 2024, I wouldn't assume it's not all AI hallucinated references, but still, it's interesting.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#384

Post by trogdor » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 10:58 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #274

shepherdjerred wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, so the insurance company should underwrite your roof for a fixed cost (adjusted for inflation) on your home. After 20 years of paying into that pool they shouldn't be able to just drop you now that your roof is old and pocket all the money and walk away and leave you with a roof that needs replacement. What I'd expect is that you pay into the pool and then after 20 years you've more than paid for the new roof an…

Insurance protects against unexpected losses during the policy period. An insurance policy is not a home warranty.

If your roof has a finite lifetime and is approaching the end of its life, the cost of insuring your roof will be close to the cost of a new roof. If your insurance company is not allowed to increase your rate to match your risk (which seems to be the case in California), they will drop you as a customer.

Your previous premium payments insured against the risk of unexpected loss during those earlier policy periods only. They have nothing to do with your current insurance rate.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#385

Post by rvba » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:04 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…

You describe theory. In practice, the price will not drop for you at all, but will increase much for others, or they will be unable to get insurance.

In fact your price will propably increase since more overhead needs to be allocated to fewer customers.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#386

Post by vba616 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:07 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…

>that requires capital - more than the average owner really has access too

It sounds odd to my ear to matter-of-factly state that the US is deprived due to being capital-poor.

I mean, I'm not disputing anything specific, but where do middle-class people have better access to consumer finance than the US?

If you'd asked me what single fact represents American homeowners to people interested in economics around the world, I would've guessed it's the access to 30-year fixed rate mortgages.

As far as I know this is a deliberate policy in the US, that has not been emulated by those envious of the American economy, but why I haven't a clue.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#387

Post by JBiserkov » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:15 PM UTC

pants2 wrote: post #375

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…

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 s…

> I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade.

Me too. So. many. lemons :-)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#388

Post by bsder » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:16 PM UTC

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?

An insurance company should be required to go through a legal process before they are able to drop people.

Sure, an undeclared pool is a problem. However, the insurance company should have to put the pictures into evidence and allow a legal rebuttal. Bureaucracies get things incorrect like "wrong address" all the time. People need the right to challenge these behemoths.

We've been through this once already in the US--it was called "rescission" in healthcare until the ACA made it moot by requiring coverage of preexisting conditions. It's a bad thing and invariably needs to be made illegal.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#389

Post by fiddlerwoaroof » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:16 PM UTC

pants2 wrote: post #375

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…

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 s…

I wonder if there’s a small-claims court claim here. It’s sort of annoying to have to jump through this hoop, but this is the sort of situation where you have to make it the right person’s problem to get what you want.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#390

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:20 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #388

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?

An insurance company should be required to go through a legal process before they are able to drop people. Sure, an undeclared pool is a problem. However, the insurance company should have to put the pictures into evidence and allow a legal rebuttal. Bureaucracies get things incorrect like "wrong address" all the time . People need the right to challenge these behemoths. We've been through this once already in the US…

We require coverage of preexisting conditions in a bargain that involves coverage mandates (since struck down) and continuous coverage / enrollment periods. And health insurance is the primary payment gateway to a deeply distorted market that relies utterly on insurers to take payments, which is not something that is true of the housing market. I don't think I have too much of my identity invested in whether homeowners insurers need due process to not renew contracts, but I guess I'd argue the other side of that one. Either way: hard to see the privacy issue.