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

411–420 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#411

Post by paulcole »

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…

> there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information.

This is part of the risk one takes buying property. It’s more than offset by the benefits of buying property. Or else everyone wouldn’t be telling me what an idiot I am for renting.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#412

Post by tshaddox »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #406
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…

> 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?

Cute idea, but hopefully (for that customer) Lemonade’s systems aren’t so smart that they figure out that they’re the only insurer willing to sell to that address.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#413

Post by pavel_lishin »

wincy wrote: post #47
dmoy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to have home insurance by law, at least not in the US If you don't own your house outright, the bank that owns part of it may require insurance as a prerequisite for loaning you money.

My uncle didn’t have insurance for a house he’d paid off. An arsonist burned it down six months later and then he proceeded to get letters from the city telling him to mow his lawn for the next ten years.

What does that have to do with insurance?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#414

Post by everybodyknows »

trogdor wrote: post #138
brogrammernot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

Why are insurance rates regulated by the government? I understand that the state has a strong interest in ensuring that insurance companies are adequately capitalized, but I don’t understand the state interest in directly regulating premium prices. (Or is that not what you are referring to?)

> state interest in directly regulating premium prices

The state interest stems from the political interests of elected officials. See comment above by @broprogrammernot.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#415

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #347
wombatpm wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The irony here is that's what insurance customers want, too: to incur arbitrary risks and have other more responsible customers pay for them.

[deleted]

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#416

Post by giantg2 »

MajimasEyepatch wrote: post #404
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

The State Attorney General might also get involved if you're being denied service based on faulty information.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#417

Post by ssl-3 »

everybodyknows wrote: post #399
tptacek wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is an unversed lay homeowner who is inexpert in the insurance industry (or perhaps even any industry) supposed to know what risks an insurer thinks are important?

Their job, I think, is to accept the quote, pay the premiums, and to keep living life.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#418

Post by wolverine876 »

brogrammernot wrote: post #69
landedgentry wrote: post #17

I'm less concerned about the spying and more concerned about insurance companies arbitrarily non-renewing policies with no recourse for the consumer. Insurance is heavily regulated for good reason, and insurance should be a source of stability instead of anxiety.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

> This results in essentially pooled risk which in aggregate drives up rates for all.

For all? I'd think it reduces rates for some and increases it for others.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#419

Post by wolverine876 »

lokar wrote: post #117
jjtheblunt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not seeing you motivate or justify the rate increases.

The insurance companies are loosing money. Rates have to go up.

Or cut expenses, educate the insured on safer behavior, ...

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#420

Post by pavel_lishin »

sarchertech wrote: post #318
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?

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…

> the end result will be to lower prices for people with homes in perfect condition

I'm not that optimistic.

Post reply on HN