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

561–570 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#561

Post by madsbuch »

pants2 wrote: post #375
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…

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…

In the framework of GDPR (which I know is not applicable in the US) you have the legal mandate to ask them to correct information about you.

I think that is very reasonable law: If n organisation makes decision about your relations, you should be able to force them to process correct information.

(I have used that clause ones, when a bank wrongly reported that I had an open account of a certain type, which resultet in that I could not open that type of account at another bank.)

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#562

Post by bombcar »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #432
sologoub wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Materials may cost that, but you are not getting a roof replaced for $1,700. Maybe $17,000 and even then it’s pushing it on the coasts especially. Labor and other overhead costs have really gone up and contractors don’t want to deal with small jobs. Sad really. I’ve never seen slate roofs in California, so not sure if these are to code here. We looked at metal and other materials, but the problem is the weight is dif…

There is very little acceptable roofing slate available in the USA. PA has a few quarries that provide it, but according to roofers (in PA) that I talked to, it is still nowhere close in quality to, say, Welsh slate. Too many voids which when coupled with much more severe freeze/thaw cycling in much of the USA leads to early failures. I think you may be overestimating the extent to which UK houses are held for "gener…

And even if you import Welsh slate, you may have to import workers, too.

Because if you're trying to use building materials that the local contractors are not familiar with, you're going to have a bad time.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#563

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rlt wrote: post #549
mh- wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That really is what a competitive insurance market should be like right? Should be. But states like California cap insurance rates in such a way that insurers are dropping (non-renewing) policies, since they can't charge market rates.

I don’t understand how states like California don’t understand basic economics.

California is one of the capitalistic states out there. But they have politicians, government, regulation, like any other state. Insurers are also rapidly leaving Florida, so it might not just be about regulation, or those two states do lots of regulation, or something in between.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#564

Post by Eisenstein »

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…

> 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.

Why are you arguing this? For what purpose would it serve to give up the right to a jury trial in order to mitigate the extreme outlier cases which bump up the averages and which do not actually get any money into the hands of the plaintiffs? You want to destroy a constitutional right because... the tobacco industry got an unfair award, or because you think people are too dumb and swayed too easily by lawyers that we can let them decide life or death but can't let them decide how much money someone is owed?

Why take this position? What justice is it serving and why would society be better off for doing it?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#565

Post by jjav »

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…

> 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.

You have too much faith in the regulators, that's not how it works.

Insurance companies are violating these rules all the time, only when you can gather a critical mass of complaints against a specific one will anything happen.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#566

Post by jjav »

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

Nobody will see lower prices. Perhaps these perfect homes might see slightly smaller increases year to year.

> houses in poor condition

The point of the thread is that they're dropping people for random noise in satellite photos. The house might be perfect, it's just the photo that's wrong. But they don't care.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#567

Post by londons_explore »

sologoub wrote: post #380
EligibleDecoy wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Materials may cost that, but you are not getting a roof replaced for $1,700. Maybe $17,000 and even then it’s pushing it on the coasts especially. Labor and other overhead costs have really gone up and contractors don’t want to deal with small jobs. Sad really. I’ve never seen slate roofs in California, so not sure if these are to code here. We looked at metal and other materials, but the problem is the weight is dif…

Slate isn't the only material with decent longevity. Ceramic and concrete tile should both last 100+ years.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#568

Post by autoexec »

tptacek wrote: post #321
sarchertech wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why is it not a good thing if insurance is more accurately priced? Insurance isn't a redistribution mechanism. And dilapidated roofs aren't a social good. Municipalities have actual redistribution schemes to make these kinds of repairs. I'll note that there's nothing at all redistributive about sneaking a trampoline onto your property, too. Further, I'll note that working class people also take pride in their houses…

> Why is it not a good thing if insurance is more accurately priced?

Another poster here, Scoundreller, recently responded to one of my comments on another topic with this insight:

> The funny thing about insurance is that as it becomes perfect at assessing risk, it becomes worthless.

> Oh, you’re about to have a $x claim this year, your premium is $x + y% admin fee.

> Just self insure and save yourself the y%.

There's likely a point where the more accurately priced a policy is the less worthwhile that policy is to purchase, which really wouldn't be a good thing for the insurance industry. The use of aerial photography probably isn't enough to put them over that threshold, but the closer they get, the less attractive their offerings will be. Considering that the insurance companies mentioned in the article have billions in revenue and assets I'm not sure they have a compelling need to resort to this level of surveillance in order to make good money. None of them appear to be going broke due to rogue trampolines anyway.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#569

Post by bartonfink »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #397
dragonwriter wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That wouldn't be pointless, because you would have a predictable expense instead of an unpredictable expense. What you're describing is actually the ideal scenario for both individuals and companies No, if the expense were that predictable, the best case would be dispense with insurance entirely, since it effects the cost not at all and imposes overhead, especially insurance where the rates are accurately computed…

If you can manage your finances well, then sure. Many people would see that pile of cash in their savings and spend it. Paying a monthly amount to a third-party is safer in many ways, even if you have some % of overhead.

so in your world, it's irresponsible to own anything unless you also put its replacement cost in escrow. house burned down two weeks after closing? fuck you, take the loss and enjoy being broke or homeless. that's asinine. think more before posting in the future.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#570

Post by lm411 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #302
lm411 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in British Columbia, our provincially owned insurer (ICBC) saved significant money because of fewer claims during Covid. They even issued a rebate to most drivers. Though they also noted losing some revenue due to fewer or lower premiums being paid. The amount saved was far greater. https://assets.ctfassets.net/nnc41duedoho/BNR4qtOTGPJuyQADtK... I wonder if the difference was largely because of Canada's more str…

And Canadian auto-parts prices are through the roof anyway. If there's a factory-gate price increase/supply issue, there's room for margin compression instead of raising prices. Maybe?

I'm with you on that 100% Scoundreller.
Post reply on HN