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

51–60 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#51

Post by dylan604 »

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.

Just because you don't have a livable structure on the property means the property is exempt from any of the property regulations. What a weird rant.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#52

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

dmoy wrote: post #39
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.

Do you live in CA? In recent years that's the majority of arbitrary cancellations I've heard about - companies pulling entirely out of CA.

I 100% agree with landedgentry. I don't really have any problem with insurers using drone photos - anyone can take drone photos of anyone else's property - and I'm not really a fan of the article calling it "spying" to imply some special kind of nefarious behavior.

But I do think the total bullshit is that companies are just using it to come up with essentially fake reasons to drop customers:

> Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see. ... Her insurer said its images showed her roof had “lived its life expectancy.” Picos paid for an independent inspection that found the roof had another 10 years of life. Her insurer declined to reconsider its decision.

I also don't have a problem if an insurer decides to leave a state entirely - that decision is essentially saying the state has made it impossible for them to adequately price risk, and that's something the state should fix if so desired.

But these BS cancellation reasons seem like a case of insurers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not very familiar with state-by-state insurance law, but I'm assuming they have to come up with some reason to drop a homeowner that already has a policy, so this looks like they're trying to find BS reasons to just drop potentially less profitable parts of their portfolio.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#53

Post by upofadown »

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.

This sort of opportunity to find a rationale for cancelling an individual insurance policy will inevitably by used for evil. See: Insurance Redlining.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#54

Post by dylan604 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #37

5 years ago, a family friend got an angry letter from the city because he had cleared slightly too much lakefront weeds (and by slightly - I mean very lightly, enough to anger the algorithm lightly). How did they know? Drone. And this was suburban Minnesota. Not even insurance - this was the city of Newport on a power rampage. Turns out there’s also no shortage of general corruption in the police department… https://…

rules are rules. you complaining about this is like football fans complaining about the tight offside calls.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#55

Post by bastawhiz »

Bostonian wrote: post #20

Insurers telling you how to reduce the risk of accidents and property damage is a good thing.

The article literally opens with a story of an insurer dropping a homeowner for having a roof that's too old with no recourse, even when a third party expert said the roof is good for another decade.

> The red-flagged images are providing insurers with ammunition for nonrenewal notices nationwide.

I don't think your comment is wrong, but it's not representative of the problem the article is bringing up.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#56

Post by devbent »

doubled112 wrote: post #44
devbent wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trampolines are obscenely high risk and injuries are very common. On top of that, if a neighborhood kid comes in to your yard and breaks their leg on your trampoline, your home owners insurance is going to be involved.

Is this something we just don't worry about in Canada? Because we only pay to park at the hospital?

Possibly. Health insurance companies may want to sue the home owner insurance company to try and recoup costs.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#57

Post by dylan604 »

secabeen wrote: post #16
egeozcan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading that, my mind is generating weird scenarios in which undeclared trampolines are causing tragedies. Trampolines can indeed cause accidents but is that big of a risk to have one? That feels so out of place it's beyond comical.

Generally yes, because the liability for injury would be on you, as the trampoline owner. Compare the probability of a guest breaking their leg when visiting your home vs if you have an unsafe trampoline. Insurers are prepared for the small risk in the former, but have not priced in the latter risk to a standard policy.

This is the main thing. Insurers know that the home owners are not going to file claims for their own family members. It is the ambulance chasing lawyers that target the insurance when guests are injured on your property. There have been claims against poorly maintained walkways when the ice is not removed when someone slips on your property. Much like how retail stores all now have Wet Floor signs from all the people getting "injured".

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#58

Post by danielmarkbruce »

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.

No one, including companies, should not be forced into contracts they don't want to enter into.

In practice, you are going to find they are never arbitrarily doing it. They are doing it because the price no longer covers the cost of providing the insurance. Just like when I decide the price of X isn't worth it anymore, I stop doing the transaction. The reasonable response would be to increase the price, but in some situations it's not possible due to regulation.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#60

Post by bastawhiz »

antisthenes wrote: post #7

Undeclared trampolines? What kind of insurance is this? I don't remember my house insurance (or medical, or any other kind really) being this detailed. I just picked rough estimates for the value of my structure and the items inside, and that was about it? There might have also been a waiver about not doing any hazardous activities like open fires or storing chemicals on the property. It definitely wasn't this detail…

In my life, I've gotten three home insurance quotes, and every single one has asked about trampolines. And I do know at least two people who have been seriously injured on trampolines, so I can't blame them: they'd be liable for accidents.
Post reply on HN