Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images • Hacker News Board

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#91

Post by tfehring » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:46 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #78

brogrammernot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Yes, insurance companies should sometimes lose money on business that they expected to be profitable. But they shouldn’t be writing business that they expect to be unprofitable a priori. Many states and lines of business are firmly in the second category right now due to overzealous insurance regulators.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#92

Post by bvan » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

Insurance works on the basis of (a) quantifying risk and (b) charging fairly for the protection. In the long-term, getting better at (a) and consequently, (b), is in everybody’s interest. For far too long, certain risk covers have been under-charged. At the end of the day, difficulty in finding affordable insurance, or any insurance at all, tells you something about the level of risk and the ability of insurers to charge appropriately for it. Regulators are often way behind the curve, to the detriment of insurers and consumers.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#93

Post by dylan604 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

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.

ahhh, see, there's a fatal flaw in your premise. I don't own a car, so this would never affect me. So, yes, rules are rules.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#94

Post by gosub100 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

egeozcan wrote: post #11

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…

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.

N=1 but there was a news story from a few years ago where a teen severed his spinal cord on one from landing on his head after a flip. I'm sure most of the claims are from simple orthopedic injuries with $5-$25k amounts but it only takes one paralysis claim to wipe out your risk model.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#95

Post by tfehring » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:57 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #50

dmoy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similar reports are coming out of Florida. Generally, it seems the industry is pulling away from higher risk to climate change issues from larger storms or fire risk.

There’s a saying in the insurance industry, there’s no such thing as a bad risk, only insufficient premium. Natural catastrophe risk is definitely increasing, but the insurance industry can handle that. The fundamental issue is that regulators in many states (including CA and FL) won’t let insurers charge enough to compensate for that risk.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#96

Post by nradov » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:58 PM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #67

Insurance bothers me for a few reasons: 1. What pisses me off more than anything else, it enables fraud that otherwise wouldn't exist. People manufacturing calamities and then claiming insurance allows dishonest people to get ahead in life over people who are honest and concerned enough about the future to buy insurance. Additionally, insurance fraud is net bad relative to other types of fraud because it encourages c…

What did policy actually state around medical reasons for trip cancellation? I'm not aware of any insurers that would accept a home COVID-19 test to justify a claim since it isn't reliably tied to any particular patient.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#97

Post by bvan » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:59 PM UTC

time0ut wrote: post #30

Insurance is a borderline scam. You have to have it by law or in case the worst happens. When the worst does happen get ready for a fight as they will do everything they can legally do to wriggle out.

Without insurance, we’d be living in much different circumstances. Just consider parts of the world where insurance is just not available to much of the population.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#98

Post by bvan » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 6:00 PM UTC

VHRanger wrote: post #65

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.

Thats exactly the problem with insurance. If I have any sort of risk mitigation (file backup, fire alarms, spare tire, a generator, whatever) I can test that it works periodically. So I know I'm actually safe for the event. For insurance, you can't know what bullshit they'll come up with to deny a claim when the time comes for it. You're left with having paid for the insurance all that time for nothing! Much better t…

You assume it’s bullshit. Difference.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#99

Post by bvan » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 6:05 PM UTC

VHRanger wrote: post #68

mb7733 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense. If an insurance company wanted to charge higher premiums, they would just do so. They wouldn't need to spy on customers. The point of them trying to quantify risk as accurately as possible is to be able to extract profit while also offering competitive rates. It's the same as with any other company. They try and operate as efficiently as possible (ie. reduce costs) to try and make more profit…

Ah, classic mistake here. If bargaining power is asymmetric between the insurer and the buyer, then the extra information is used for additional price discrimination (eg. Its better for you if the picture is never taken regardless who you are). So the question is: does the insurer or the insured have the bargaining power here? Competition helps, but is only one part of it. Seeing that insurers seem very profitable in…

If insurance was very profitable ‘in the US’, top-tier insurers would not be leaving states like Florida and California. There is a reason why they decide to no longer cover wildfire losses or hurricane losses. In the case of Florida, rampant fraud has turned the market into a basket-case.

Re: Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

#100

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 6:05 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #23

mb7733 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would insurance being individually priced negate its value? The benefit of insurance is the pooling of the risk. The more individually it is priced, the more efficiently it works. (Not that I'm a fan of insurers spying on their customers from the sky...)

Because at the limit, the size of the pool is one...you.

It seems perfectly reasonable to treat someone taking singular risks differently than someone taking average risks.