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

451–460 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#451

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #422
ssl-3 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On 1-3 occasions over the course of an insured's entire life, they'll be confronted with the paperwork for the insurance contract for the most expensive asset they'll ever buy. They should read it.

And then remember all the relevant details for the next 30 years…

It’s frankly unrealistic to expect most people to remember their home insurance asking about trampolines 15+ years ago.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#452

Post by potatolicious »

pxeboot wrote: post #361
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

> Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? This doesn't stop expensive lawsuits, even if they ultimately don't pay the claim.

Also doesn't stop the lawsuit between the policy holder and the insurance company, which also costs money.

Whereas your ability to sue for a non-existent policy (or one where that was unambiguously canceled) is... much less.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#453

Post by firesteelrain »

GenerWork wrote: post #438
firesteelrain wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US has a lot of different weather patterns than the UK. UK sits at a latitude similar to that of states like Washington, Montana, and North Dakota. The choice of roofing materials is also influenced by building regulations and codes, which can vary between countries and even within regions, dictating the use of certain materials for fire resistance, insulation, and other safety and performance standards. Cost-effecti…

>Like Florida with crazy hurricanes, no reason to be spending money on something besides asphalt architectural style shingles. Some people do get metal roofs. But if its going to get blown off, then why? Tile and metal roofs last much longer than asphalt roofs in Florida, and while it's definitely more up front, they're generally more resistant to extreme weather (tiles are very heavy and metal is generally fastened…

Tile roofs are a more Spanish style look and crazy expensive.

Otherwise I agree with you

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#454

Post by rootusrootus »

duped wrote: post #377
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.

That's wild. I live in one of the oldest cities west of the Rockies (granted, that isn't -that- old) and there are whole neighborhoods of century homes, and they're considered desirable. In the last 10-20 years a bunch have been gutted and upgraded -- new pipes, wiring, windows, etc. Maintains the charm but modern efficiency, convenience, and safety. Sure, some become tear-downs, but a pretty high percentage are sticking around. That old growth doug fir is awesome.

I just sold a century home myself, after my mother passed. There was a little bidding war for it, even in this market. There's a character to the century homes that you cannot get in a new home at anywhere near the same price point.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#455

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #451
tptacek wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On 1-3 occasions over the course of an insured's entire life, they'll be confronted with the paperwork for the insurance contract for the most expensive asset they'll ever buy. They should read it.

And then remember all the relevant details for the next 30 years… It’s frankly unrealistic to expect most people to remember their home insurance asking about trampolines 15+ years ago.

What you're really saying is that it's unrealistic for buyers to know that trampolines are dangerous.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#456

Post by rootusrootus »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #435
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 UK has a massively milder climate than most of the USA, which provides significant assistance to things lasting. As I noted in another comment below, roofing slate is essentially unavailable in the USA due to geology - what does exist is of much lower quality than a good welsh slate. Still, in some ways I agree with you: roofing materials in general in the USA are far less durable those used in the UK and Europe,…

> The UK has a massively milder climate than most of the USA, which provides significant assistance to things lasting.

That makes sense. Roofs last a pretty long time in the PNW as well, for similar reasons. Mostly we just get rain. Not a lot of particularly hard freezes, our idea of big hail is 1/4 inch, etc. It's pretty routine for a garden variety "25 year roof" to actually do all 25 years, and even 30.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#457

Post by Eisenstein »

skissane wrote: post #378
tptacek wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Gi…

To explain the lawsuit issue, here is a perfectly plausible scenario and how it could play out somewhere in the USA.:

1. A person is at a friend's house for dinner

2. Upon leaving to go home, they trip and fall trying to navigate an unlit path to their car

3. Their injury lands them in the hospital and requires a week or so of recovery time in which they could not work, and as they contract out they lose that money

4. The health insurance that fully covered their injury, looks at the medical records and finds that the injury occurred on another property and calls the people involved and finds out about the unlit path

5. They deny payment for the medical treatments and tell the injured person to sue the friend for medical payment because they are at fault and they have home owner's insurance

6. Forced to sue the friend or be out tens of thousands of dollars, the injured person adds to the claim for lost wages (hey, the friend isn't paying for it anyway, the insurance is)

This is how you end up with such lawsuits that the USA is famous for -- people are forced to sue other people in order to not go bankrupt, and things get piled on that.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#458

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #455
Retric wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then remember all the relevant details for the next 30 years… It’s frankly unrealistic to expect most people to remember their home insurance asking about trampolines 15+ years ago.

What you're really saying is that it's unrealistic for buyers to know that trampolines are dangerous.

Bathtubs are dangerous, being dangerous isn’t the only criteria here.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#459

Post by gjs4786 »

that there is any effort at all to point out why this is okay is bewildering. it's antisocial behavior. there is a reason this is on hn, folks. and there is a reason why basic car insurance is not. not today, anyway. its because it is disruptive, obnoxious behavior that juts out and has jagged edges, and people dont stand for that. this isn't about my roof, or yours. people are quick to point out, "fwiw, they could cancel your insurance right now! they arent required to even give it to you, so yeah, they can do that" or, "they're perfectly within the law to do it, next". I paraphrase here, but regardless. I confidently say to that: Hah! then the law got it wrong, then. and the law needs to change. that is specifically the problem. they simply have too much power. and now they're rubbing our faces on it while a bunch of you rush to find why that's [legally] alright, while you only consider why it makes sense to you, not why it doesn't make sense to others. a critical oversight. they could have gone about this 100 different ways. fleet drones. really?

I predict that they are preparing substantial layoffs; thats the only thing that even begins to explain this situation. out with the old, in with the drones

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#460

Post by xyzelement »

worik wrote: post #298
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?

The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are sim…

at least in the United States, home insurance is issued a year at a time. So it doesn’t make sense to cull today in anticipation of some hypothetical future shift towards cataclysm.

Also, what is the aerial photo of a roof going to indicate in terms of “cataclysmic climate events looming”?

Also is it a coincidence or a pun that your name is worik and it is common for you to sign your posts with something about worrying?

Post reply on HN