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

621–630 of 712 posts

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#621

Post by tomp »

bdjsiqoocwk wrote: post #620
tomp wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sou…

The real world is much more complicated that mathematical models.

But if your business goes bankrupt with probability 100% with even a simplified mathematical model, I wouldn't want to invest in it.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#622

Post by verall »

Retric wrote: post #587
tptacek wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Someone with both is more likely to have a bathtub related death. 341 people died by drowning in bathtubs + 70 scalding deaths + unknown number of falls vs 2 deaths from trampolines. ~3 million trampolines in the US. The risk of being sued is very different though.

I think neighbor's kid's injury rate is more relevant than general deaths-caused rate for a home liability insurance policy

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#623

Post by ncallaway »

jajko wrote: post #580
ncallaway wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t actually confronted with the paperwork. When I purchased my house, the insurerer that was selected by my bank informed me (several times) that they were unable to provide the complete coverage details and contract until after the insurance contract was in place. Even then, it took me several calls and interactions to get them to send me the actual detailed insurance contract. They tried to fob me off several…

No, you have been played. Signing a contract, any contract without previously seeing it... ask any lawyer how good of an idea is that. Its doesnt matter what mumbo jumbo they come up with, if you cave to peer pressure then accept the risks. Or vote with your wallet.

I didn’t sign a contract without seeing it. I didn’t sign a contract with the homeowners insurance. The bank contracted with the homeowners insurance.

How could I have signed a contract without seeing it? I wouldn’t have anything to sign!

But none of that was my point. My point was—if asking to see the agreement was this far outside the norm, then how many people are actually confronted with the paperwork? My guess, based on my anecdotal experience, is not many.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#624

Post by theluketaylor »

WalterBright wrote: post #560
skissane wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That makes sense in a vacuum, but in the real world not everyone is a lawyer and corporations have a vast power imbalance compared with a member of the general public. It's incredibly easy to bury something surprising among many other clauses, such as only scheduled flights being covered and not charters. The idea certain potentially surprising clauses need to more prominent seems pretty reasonable on balance. The onus is still on the signing party to read them, but they are afforded the opportunity to notice among many clauses these are ones that deserve special attention.

That means there will always be an argument around what a reasonable party would consider a surprising clause, but contract law disputes deal with nuance, edge cases, and what a reasonable party would expect all the time. With rulings like this corporations will air on the side of caution when taking big swings in forming their agreements since litigation is so costly and the outcome so uncertain. Consumers gain a little power back (though still far from equal footing).

This should only apply when there are large power imbalances, such as individual people entering agreements with vast multinational corporations. When big corps ink deals with each other caveat emptor should reign; they have equal opportunity to review and understand the terms and therefore have to live with the consequences.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#625

Post by remram »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #406
pants2 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Luckily, Lemonade has smarter systems and got my location right, so I was able to get insured with them. But I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade. Insurers with better information will be able to judge risk better, so they can undercut competitors on lower risk or avoid taking on higher risk. That really is what a competitive insurance market should be like right?

If Google is right 98% of the time, companies might find it not worth the cost to develop and use a better system, leaving the 2% of people caught in the crack unable to get basic services as all companies go off of Google's data. This is a huge fairness problem.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#626

Post by WalterBright »

theluketaylor wrote: post #624
WalterBright wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That makes sense in a vacuum, but in the real world not everyone is a lawyer and corporations have a vast power imbalance compared with a member of the general public. It's incredibly easy to bury something surprising among many other clauses, such as only scheduled flights being covered and not charters. The idea certain potentially surprising clauses need to more prominent seems pretty reasonable on balance. The on…

> The onus is still on the signing party to read them, but they are afforded the opportunity to notice among many clauses these are ones that deserve special attention.

It's not unreasonable to expect a party to a contract to read all of it. If one's case is based on "I didn't read it", the other party should prevail.

> Consumers gain a little power back (though still far from equal footing).

The consumer can always say "no". An important feature of a free market is there are no forced contracts. Saying "no" is the ultimate power.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#627

Post by Retric »

verall wrote: post #622
Retric wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone with both is more likely to have a bathtub related death. 341 people died by drowning in bathtubs + 70 scalding deaths + unknown number of falls vs 2 deaths from trampolines. ~3 million trampolines in the US. The risk of being sued is very different though.

I think neighbor's kid's injury rate is more relevant than general deaths-caused rate for a home liability insurance policy

Thus, “The risk of being sued is very different though.”

However, that just circles back to few people asking what their insurance company might think.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#628

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

I had a similar issue with my car insurance. My mother in law, who shared a first and last name with my wife, got into a car accident, on my insurance.

I worked it for a year and was unsuccessful in removing it. Ironically, my wife passed away but the accident is now associated with her car. They did figure out however, that I’m no longer eligible for a multi-driver discount.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#629

Post by Spooky23 »

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.

They do. HN commenters often over simplify complex issues.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#630

Post by lostlogin »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #563
rlt wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> so it might not just be about regulation

Or is it about risk? Those places have a fair few large disasters, and one is sinking while denying it.

Post reply on HN