Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#391

Post by el_benhameen »

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 saw one case where a guy was dropped because of an aerial photo of a pile of junk in his yard. I’ve had piles of junk in my yard during various remodeling projects. If the satellite passes over the day before the dump run, there’s no way to tell that the junk was gone the next day. If there’s an inspection, it’s easily explained.

I suppose you could offer an explanation for the satellite photo, but in that case you’ve already been dropped, so getting your policy reinstated is going to be a much bigger lift.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#392

Post by hnburnsy »

I wish insurance was more flexible with risk and deductibles, 20 year old roof, your deductible is 20000, 5 year old roof your deductible is 500, something that equalizes the risk without the need to drop customers. Heck I would self insure or set an extremely high deductible for rebuilding, but I still need coverage for any liability risk like when the mailman trips on my sidewalk.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#393

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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

Trampoline is a bad example. Pool is not. That could threaten your house’s structure, or cause damage to your neighbour’s in a storm. The article gave an example of an overhanging tree—it makes sense for the population to segregate into those who will manage that risk and those who won’t, with the latter being charged a higher premium.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#395

Post by ezfe »

steelframe wrote: post #85

I'm not sure the degree to which insurance companies are legally allowed to share information such as aerial photographs with each other. When I worked at Google I knew a developer who was building a prototype service similar to Google Flights, except for auto and home insurance. I don't think that product ever shipped. The dev on that team told me that a key thing they learned while doing the analysis is that the op…

It's not to always switch, but to re-quote all competitors. Most insurance competition plays out on two factors:

- What companies the customer quotes - What amounts they are offered

You should always quote competitors because stuff changes and there are sign-on discounts offered as well.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#396

Post by bookofjoe »

>If satellite launches go as planned, images could be updated daily by 2030, according to Neil Pearson, a consultant who works with imagery companies.

>"It could get interesting from a privacy standpoint as... a property could be monitored daily at high resolution," he said. "It is a bit Orwellian."

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#397

Post by shepherdjerred »

dragonwriter wrote: post #372
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.

> 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…

If you can manage your finances well, then sure. Many people would see that pile of cash in their savings and spend it. Paying a monthly amount to a third-party is safer in many ways, even if you have some % of overhead.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#398

Post by kalleboo »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #376
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.

Although one thing to keep in mind is that earthquake-proofing building standards are also renewed about once per generation. I would absolutely refuse to let my family live in a house built before the post-Hanshin 2000 reforms (just look at the houses collapsed in the recent Noto earthquake, most of them predated even the earlier 1981 reforms)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#399

Post by everybodyknows »

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…

It's interesting that insurers will spend money to discover this rather than rely on the pro forma clause that claims proceeding from an undisclosed risk are invalid. I'm guessing they calculate that a jury may not respect that part of the contract when confronted in court by grieving parents of an accident victim.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#400

Post by latency-guy2 »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #290
mopenstein wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few people hate having insurance in case of accidents but a lot of people hate having guns stuck in their back and told to pay up for other people. I pay a rate based on my risk factors which I actively work to maintain as low as possible. I don't want to be forced to pay for every reckless idiot in my country (of which there are too many to count). But I also hate non-voluntary anything, so I'm weird.

And without exception the folks fixated on the notion they're paying the way for someone else fail to grasp, on the most fundamental level, the notion of a public good. There are days where I think it'd be amusing to suspend federal and state law in the Dakotas just to see how long it took before regional warlords took over.

No such thing as public bads I suppose.
Post reply on HN