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

611–620 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#611

Post by Nifty3929 »

ahtihn wrote: post #349
Nifty3929 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a technology or privacy problem - it's a legislative one. If it's illegal to do X, then it seems reasonable for the gov't to enforce that - the more efficiently the better. And if enforcing it seems wrong, then maybe it shouldn't be a law. For another toy example, what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just use…

> what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just used to fund the police Or maybe people would adjust their behavior and respect speed limits? Laws that are sporadically enforced at the discretion of police officers are awful. It just enables discrimination.

Totally agree! People might adjust their speeds. Or continue speeding and accept the fines. But getting mad and forcing the law to change seems more likely to me.

But partially enforced laws are the worst.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#612

Post by Nifty3929 »

slyall wrote: post #439
Nifty3929 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a technology or privacy problem - it's a legislative one. If it's illegal to do X, then it seems reasonable for the gov't to enforce that - the more efficiently the better. And if enforcing it seems wrong, then maybe it shouldn't be a law. For another toy example, what if speed laws in the US were fully enforced 100% of the time - they would be yanked immediately, because they are dumb and mostly just use…

The US is very lax about enforcing speed laws compared to other countries. Compare to somewhere like Australia where you get fined for just going a few km/h over the limit and the use speed cameras extensively. https://www.qld.gov.au/about/newsroom/increased-penalties-fo... Whereas it seems to be common in parts of the US for everyone on a freeway to be 10 miles/hour over the limit and nobody cares

What is the Australian citizen’s sentiment toward these speed laws?

And what are the limits on a typical freeway?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#613

Post by toss1 »

spoonjim wrote: post #498
harimau777 wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that one difference might be that physical inspections don't scale. It seems to me that the current systems working (for regular people) requires that insurers not be too good at assessing risks. The better the insurer is at assessing risk the closer insurance gets to providing no value to the insured.

Insurance can provide value even when risk is assessed perfectly! If everyone has a 1 in 100,000 chance of a $100,000 damage incident, they will have to keep $100,000 of savings to make sure they can avoid becoming homeless from an accident. But by paying $1.25 in insurance, (25% profit to the insurer), they can use their $100,000 for other purposes and generate much more than $1.25 in income from it.

Not Quite - only if risk is spread across the whole pool does it provide the value you describe.

If risk is assessed perfectly, they know that Alan's & Charles' houses will not have a fire, but Bob's house will burn. Alan and Charles (and all the others) pay only the $0.25 overhead/profit, while Bob must pay the $125,000 ratings +profit.

Insurance basically disappears, as it adds no value, and we go back to being self-insured.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#614

Post by nucleardog »

username332211 wrote: post #194
neilv wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is basic insurance for ordinary people a for-profit business at all, rather than something the collective (administered by the state) does to soften any misfortune that hits any of its members?

If you do that, you must also regulate the sort of vehicles ordinary people can buy and the sort of homes they can own. After all, we can't have the community suffer an unsustainable loss because some guy earned too much money and selfishly bought a Camaro. So, obviously the collective should create a list of cheap and economical cars ordinary people are allowed to buy. If that doesn't feel right to you, remember, th…

> If you do that, you must also regulate the sort of vehicles ordinary people can buy and the sort of homes they can own.

There are two provinces in Canada (British Columbia and Saskatchewan, since 1973 and 1945 respectively) who have a crown insurance corporation and require everyone purchase insurance through the government.

Neither of them force everyone to drive a Lada.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#615

Post by PrairieFire »

brogrammernot wrote: post #69
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.

Alright, I spent years working and building 0-1 insurance products. Let me peel back some stuff that’s been happening behind the scenes. Some officials are elected and some are appointed which all depends on the state. Appointed officials are usually more reasonable and elected are not because higher rates = mad voters = re-election chances lower. For a long time, insurers have struggled to get sufficient rate change…

One key part of the formula omitted is most major insurers while posting underwriting losses in certain markets, etc in 2023 posted annual net profit over $1.0bn. Am I right in thinking these sweeping rate increases and market exits are justified by protection of $250mm+ per quarter net income? If so, then are we right to blame anybody other than the insurers shareholders and owners for this current state? Wouldn’t $25mm per quarter net income be sufficient? Why does runaway profits maxxing have to apply to every market including public good markets like insurance?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#616

Post by gxs »

tptacek wrote: post #367
gxs wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In these cases, the argument is always of the type you just mentioned. “What’s the big deal the data is already available, relax”. On top of that, it comes with an air of condescension as if no one had ever thought about that before. One concern with things like this is that it’s different when you have to send someone out to inspect a home vs inspecting thousands of homes at a time. Once you have data in that volume…

Again: insurers can and do demand home inspections when underwriting. This is strictly less intrusive than common existing practices in insurance.

The irony of starting a comment with again when you yourself didn’t read the reply.

I acknowledged that all this info is already out there.

That insurance companies can demand to inspect your home.

And even further that that this aerial footage is already widely available.

My comment was specifically calling out that collecting data one house inspection at a time is different than collecting data at high volumes.

But let’s gloss over the fact that someone didn’t even fully disagree with you, but even then you couldn’t get over that one point that you didn’t like.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#617

Post by sologoub »

londons_explore wrote: post #567
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…

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

In my comment I said we looked into metal and other materials, but all increase weight, requiring engineering evaluation of the house and likely reinforcing the structure. Ceramic and concrete tiles are common here, but have the same problem. Don’t know about slate, but for the tiles you mention underlayment still needs to be replaced every 20-30 years at least requiring these to be removed and reapplied. Since labor is the major cost driver, it’s basically like paying for a new roof.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#618

Post by shepherdjerred »

bartonfink wrote: post #569
shepherdjerred wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm open to having my mind changed, but when you post with this attitude it achieves no purpose.

You assumed my views without asking.

My comment only referred to there still being a benefit in choosing to have insurance even with perfect information about risk and expected benefits. At no point did I even imply that I thought "it's irresponsible to own anything".

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#619

Post by lostemptations5 »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #476
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…

There was a case recently in NZ where home owner tried to defraud an insurance company. Well suddenly none of the insurance companies would work with him. Insurance is a requirement for mortgage so this person is effectively going to loose his house. False positive with similar circumstances would be a nightmare.

I'm curious-- have a link?

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#620

Post by bdjsiqoocwk »

tomp wrote: post #610
bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bunch of nonsense. If you believe that in an infinite time scale the spike of a "random walk martingale" will exceed every level, then you also believe that you'll go bankrupt even if you don't sell insurance at break even. Maybe mathematically incorrect, but entirely irrelevant in the real world. IN ADDITION, the money that insurers make isn't just the underwriting profit but also the investment profit. You y…

I don’t ”believe” in math, I can prove it. If you don’t sell at break even, it’s not a martingale, so the Law doesn’t apply.

You can prove mathematical propositions, you obviously can't make truthful conclusions about insurance. And that's really the crucial parts. Anyone can make prove mathematical statements.

Reminds of the guy who lost his keys in the darkness and was looking for the keys under the lamp because that's where he can see. Likewise, you're using your tools and hoping that the tools have some connection to real life.

You sound like one of those "that's all good in practice but it would never work in theory" type of people.

Post reply on HN