‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The End of a Fair Price: Dynamic Pricing and the Normalization of Gouging

95 points · 128 comments · paimapi

  1. sib · · focus · HN ↗
    "Did you know that home insurers use aerial drones to study your rooftop? If the conditions signal neglect, they might cancel your coverage before an accident."

    While there are certainly some issues of concern in the article and the reviewed book, the above seems like exactly what insurance companies should be doing: pricing (or making available) coverage based upon risk.

    This is not much different from an auto insurance company raising your rates (or cancelling coverage) because you've received a number of speeding tickets, which implies increased future risk of loss.

    In fact, I received a letter from my homeowners insurance company a couple years ago stating that they would not renew our coverage due to conditions that they'd observed (clearly from aerial imagery) including overgrown bushes touching the walls of the house and some larger tree branches growing over the house.

    I had a landscaping company come and fix the issues, sent my own drone up to take new pictures, sent the company the pictures, and they agreed to continue coverage. And now my house has less future risk of damage. This seems like a win-win for both of us.

    1. darth_avocado · · focus · HN ↗
      > pricing (or making available) coverage based upon risk.

      The whole point of insurance is to manage risk by spreading it across all consumers. If my insurance rates go up based on my usage or individual risk factors, it’s just an elaborate money making scheme. It should be like “everyone has to pay x to get insurance to get covered and if the claims start going up, everyone has to pay more”.

      1. PaulDavisThe1st · · focus · HN ↗
        So much this.

        But then again, there's presumably some sort of balance. If someone insists on building and rebuilding in a flood or fire zone, it's not obvious that everyone else should see their premiums go up to cover that. One option is for the insurance company to just cease insuring the property(ies), but I suspect there's more overall negatives to that than if they bump the premiums of clients in specific locales.

        1. wrs · · focus · HN ↗
          This conundrum (and many others) is why insurance is a highly regulated business. The commission working in the public interest decides how the compromise is drawn, not the insurers.
          1. darth_avocado · · focus · HN ↗
            > The commission working in the public interest decides how the compromise is drawn, not the insurers

            I haven’t laughed so hard in years.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.