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

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#401

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:36 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #332

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.

I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won. I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepres…

[deleted]

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#402

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:37 PM UTC

el_benhameen wrote: post #391

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…

You're supposed to notify your insurer when you remodel!

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#403

Post by tptacek » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:38 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #393

RomanAlexander wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pools are insurance issues because people die in them, and their nexts of kin sue the homeowner.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#404

Post by MajimasEyepatch » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:39 PM UTC

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #389

pants2 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your best bet would probably be to go to your state Department of Insurance. They're the ones who regulate insurance in each state, including issuing licenses and appointments, and agencies and carriers tend to take DOI complaints seriously. It wouldn't necessarily get resolved fast, but they would have the authority to do something about it, if there are any grounds for taking action.

(The federal government, for mostly historical reasons, does not generally regulate insurance except for health insurance, and that only started with Obamacare. So each state has its own DOI, and agents and carriers have to get licensed in each state. It's a dumb, byzantine system going back to Paul v. Virginia in 1869, when the Supreme Court ruled that issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. I don't think that reasoning applies today, but Congress has specifically exempted insurance from things like anti-trust legislation since then. Sweeping insurance under federal regulation would, in theory, cause a giant mess since there's so much law and process built around the current state-by-state system. IMO it would be worth it because the current system is completely ridiculous, but so it goes.)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#405

Post by xjcucuv » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:40 PM UTC

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #325

RomanAlexander wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.

[dead]

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#406

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:40 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…

> 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.

Insurers with better information will be able to judge risk better, so they can undercut competitors on lower risk or avoid taking on higher risk. That really is what a competitive insurance market should be like right?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#407

Post by Crunchified » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:42 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #269

> “If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, you should pay more than somebody with a brand new roof,” If you've been paying for insurance for 20 years with one company, then I'd say that is certainly a dick move to drop you right before it might pay out. What even is the point then?

It is NOT the insurance company's job to replace a worn-out roof. That is YOUR responsibility! If a roof on your home is not up to the proven (albeit occasional) stresses of your local environment (including snowfall, winds, volcanic ash, etc.), whether due to quality, design, or wear, I see no reason why the insurer should not modify its indemnity. I will grant you that a decent insurer would allow you to petition for a review based on any verifiable additional information that you, as owner and insured, might be able to present.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#408

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:42 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…

Also trees can have a lot of impact on your insurance rate, like if you have a neighbor's trees intruding into your property, remember that it is the property's owner responsibility and not the owner of the tree, so they could ding you for that. Or if they notice you are too close to a tree line in an area known for wild fires, etc...

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#409

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:43 PM UTC

vba616 wrote: post #386

EligibleDecoy wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

Insuring all those fixed rate mortgages is very expensive. The US has never actually had to do so, the closest being the 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac recapitalizations which cost $238B in loans that were finally paid off in 2022.

In Europe a lot of the government fiscal crises were a result of small countries having to backstop giant cross border banks that happened to be headquartered there, and there is little appetite for tighter fiscal union.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#410

Post by twoodfin » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 11:48 PM UTC

20after4 wrote: post #232

twoodfin wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it’s certainly accurate insurance is a regulated industry, nothing you listed explains why it’s a good idea to allow government to set or approve rates vs. ameliorating those social concerns through other means.

Because insurance isn't optional. If the law demands insurance then the law must assure equal access to the legally mandated insurance.

Which law demands home owners carry an insurance policy?