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

551–560 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#551

Post by jessekv »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #61
dylan604 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Imagine if I put cameras all over a city that charged you $10 every time you exceeded the speed limit by 1 MPH. With an additional $10 fee for each additional MPH measure over the limit. Also, this is per camera, so if you pass 6 cameras on your commute going 70 in a 65, you’re getting a $300 penalty. Rules are rules.

It's an equitable system. Ideally there would be a clear indication as soon as each fine happens, perhaps a sign with your plate number.

This way individuals can correct their dangerous behaviour immediately, rather than accidentally accumulating a large fine.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#552

Post by ssl-3 »

tptacek wrote: post #497
Retric wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ok, well, we've reached an argument that is dispositive for people who think trampolines are no more dangerous than bathtubs.

I don't see here where anyone has made any supposition that bathtubs are more dangerous than trampolines are, except for your own missive.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#554

Post by fostware »

It's been happening for years. Anything to limit the number of onsite visits needed because that takes a lot more time.

I know insurance brokers who have revisited a clients renewal, because Google Maps and/or the council's GIS photography shows activity or buildings counter to the client declarations. Is it a final decision? No. It's used to prompt the client to review their coverage and amend their submitted documents. Sometimes, those amendments mean the brokers are no longer able to get coverage, and the clients go somewhere else.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#556

Post by mvc »

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.

So in the richest country in the world parents can't let their kids play on trampolines because a neighbours kid having an accident on one would bankrupt their insurance company.

Meanwhile, toddlers do active shooter drills like they are fire alarm drills.

Totally logical country you got there with a perfectly reasonable approach to risk.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#557

Post by kuchenbecker »

nick7376182 wrote: post #136
lokar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In CA, a recent batch of wild fires wiped out 20 years of profits.

Then maybe they should have worked with customers proactively to prune trees and set up fire exclusion zones or fire resistant exteriors instead of sitting on their laurels raking it in.

Seems like a lot of work when leaving the state is possible.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#558

Post by kwhitefoot »

gizmo686 wrote: post #163
salawat wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not wrong. Insurance with perfect info ceases to ne any form of a recognizable social good. In fact, it just becomes indistinguishable from a sanctioned form of populational segregation, instead of the pull-a-long stick-with-carrot through which risk is mitigated against long tail events through active propagation of best practices as a condition of coverage. Insurance companies should be exposed to the same…

Insurance with perfect info would be an amazing social good. If they could say "you can build a house there, but it will burn down in a forest fire 15 years from now", we could make an informed decision on if we want to build that house.

That's not insurance then. The whole point of insurance is shared risk in circumstances where perfect information is not available but a reasonable calculation of risk for the cohort is.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#559

Post by [deleted] »

skissane wrote: post #543
Eisenstein wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the systems are different and one is more oriented towards payout because we have little to no social safety nets so whatever the victims get has to last them for life, among other reasons I described above. Are you trying to say that one system is bad and another is good? They are different for different reasons, which can be explained by the structure of the society and what we expect courts to provide…

> I agree that the systems are different and one is more oriented towards payout because we have little to no social safety nets so whatever the victims get has to last them for life, among other reasons I described above. The argument though is, a lot of the difference is nothing to do with the factors you cite such as social safety nets, it is about the use of juries in civil cases, especially to decide damages. Da…

[deleted]

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#560

Post by WalterBright »

skissane wrote: post #491
WalterBright wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our economy runs on contracts. If one is able to avoid the terms of the contract by claiming one didn't read it, the whole system falls apart. (When I bought a house, the sales contract was maybe 50 pages. I went to the escrow company to sign. The escrow agent was visibly annoyed that I leaned back in the chair and set about reading every page. One of the pages that needed to be signed said nothing but "I have read a…

> If one is able to avoid the terms of the contract by claiming one didn't read it, the whole system falls apart. Except, Courts have ruled that you can , at least sometimes , get out of the fine print of a contract by claiming you didn't read it. For example, see the notable 1962 Supreme Court of California case, Steven v. Fidelity Casualty Co [0]. In 1957, plaintiff purchased a life insurance policy covering plane…

Frankly, the court ruled wrongly. The ruling throws all kinds of things in a contract in doubt, and that's no good for either party.

Why should anyone think the fine print is irrelevant? Everything in a contract is relevant, or it wouldn't be in the contract.

Post reply on HN