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

461–470 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#461

Post by rootusrootus »

dbg31415 wrote: post #373

I think this is fine, BUT... I think they should have to give people time to fix the problem before dropping them. A neighbor literally just got a letter in the mail, "We think your trees are over your roof. Policy cancelled immediately." (The tree was over his daughter's playhouse in the back yard, the algorithm saw shingles obstructed by a tree branch and flagged it. They don't even bother with human review.) There…

Disheartening to hear USAA let you down. I've been with them for years and haven't really shopped around because generally their customer service is pretty great. Not worth it to me to save a few bucks and then deal with really crappy customer service when the shit hits the fan.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#462

Post by loeg »

shawndrost wrote: post #444
tptacek wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. The idea of a risk pool is that everyone's catastrophic risks cancel out, not that people who replace their roofs also chip in to cover hail and water damage for people who don't.

In fact, you are wrong; insurance in California is redistributive by regulatory design. Farmers (when operating in CA) must offer insurance X% of homeowners in a range of $Y-$Z, subsidizing those customers who are more expensive to Farmers. It's relevant to the story: Farmers is disallowed (for political reasons) from canceling accounts in Auburn due to actuarial climate updates; Farmers has new incentives to closely…

This quirk of California law (that insurers cannot factor in climate risk or anything other than trailing 20 year average costs) is why insurers are pulling out of the state; it isn't generally true of insurance.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#463

Post by timr »

loeg wrote: post #462
shawndrost wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, you are wrong; insurance in California is redistributive by regulatory design. Farmers (when operating in CA) must offer insurance X% of homeowners in a range of $Y-$Z, subsidizing those customers who are more expensive to Farmers. It's relevant to the story: Farmers is disallowed (for political reasons) from canceling accounts in Auburn due to actuarial climate updates; Farmers has new incentives to closely…

This quirk of California law (that insurers cannot factor in climate risk or anything other than trailing 20 year average costs) is why insurers are pulling out of the state; it isn't generally true of insurance.

It also doesn't have anything explicitly to do with "actuarial climate updates" -- there have been a bunch of correlated losses recently (i.e. fires in 2017-2018) that mean that the insurers are losing money on people who live in certain high-risk places in California. Calling it "climate" just window dressing for local politics.

California won't let them underwrite to accurately reflect the location risk, so they're pulling out instead. It's basically exactly what Tptacek said, only demonstrating it via the stupidity of California's law.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#464

Post by FireBeyond »

treflop wrote: post #211
VHRanger wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats exactly the problem with insurance. If I have any sort of risk mitigation (file backup, fire alarms, spare tire, a generator, whatever) I can test that it works periodically. So I know I'm actually safe for the event. For insurance, you can't know what bullshit they'll come up with to deny a claim when the time comes for it. You're left with having paid for the insurance all that time for nothing! Much better t…

I’ve known plenty of people who had legitimate accidents not of their own fault where insurance made them more than whole, and they would have not been able to afford the replacement if they had simply been saving for the same amount of time. If you actually feel like you could recoup of the cost of paying for insurance by instead keeping the money in a piggy bank, you are buying too much insurance. There’s a sweet s…

> I’ve known plenty of people who had legitimate accidents not of their own fault where insurance made them more than whole

And I know plenty of people myself, who had legitimate accidents not of their own fault who were left $10-15K out of pocket after insurance and settlements.

Let's start with a car that was two years old, I owed $22K on. Car was totaled and most of the comps from the insurer was $25-28K. Oh good, says I. And then they find one 150 miles away that is $13,500. This drags the value down to about $20K. While there's obviously something wrong with this entry, "Doesn't say salvage title in the ad, so it's a valid comp".

It takes them over a month to figure this out, all the while they have me in a rental, and then try to tell me that they're only covering one week of rental coverage. Had to threaten to sue to get compensation for my injured wrist/arm (which was hyperextended when the airbag went off as I was holding the steering wheel).

I still ended up losing out on $6K 'equity' in my car, having to come up with another downpayment, and months of calls from various medical providers who were having a hard time getting my insurer to pay their bills.

For another driver who ran a stop sign, t-boned me, and whose insurance had admitted 100% liability within 48 hours.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#465

Post by Brian_K_White »

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…

Also the cheap materials roof weighs less, and so the whole building under the roof can get away with being built cheaper.

In order to have a better roof, you probably must have a better entire house under it also.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#466

Post by FireBeyond »

jeffbee wrote: post #155
nneonneo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would definitely mind if the police were following me personally in an airplane…

Did you recently rob a bank or carjack an old lady? If not, I sincerely doubt that anyone would go to the trouble of following you around.

LOL. Police around here will routinely use rotary for grocery store thefts, fixed wing for pursuit of non-violent suspects. In fact a couple of weeks ago, they deployed a State Patrol fixed wing to come south about 40 miles to here to look for "a group of young males dressed in black that were graffiting numerous buildings in town".

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#467

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

    > if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information
I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment.

In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#468

Post by Brian_K_White »

firesteelrain wrote: post #453
GenerWork wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

per year

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#469

Post by mooreds »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #467
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…

> if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it qu…

Agreed.

I've definitely reached out to insurance regulators in the past and things got fixed. (In the USA.)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#470

Post by nothercastle »

firesteelrain wrote: post #427
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…

Some insurance companies will allow trampolines -- at a cost. We had to get rid of ours because the cost and liability just wasnt worth it.

Most people don’t declare then which is really stupid imo.
Post reply on HN