Thread

1. sib · 1790706977 · 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 · 1790712042 · 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. scottLobster · 1790712797 · focus · HN ↗

         Why should safe drivers pay the same rate as people with multiple DUIs?

         Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?

         1. darth_avocado · 1790714378 · focus · HN ↗

            > Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?

            Because otherwise the insurance companies can just look at your completely maintained roof that will last another 20 years and ask for a full replacement because it is 10 years old. And if you don’t comply they will drop you. (Happened to me)

            1. scottLobster · 1790719004 · focus · HN ↗

               Well yeah, abuse can happen. But the general principle of some people paying higher premiums than others because they're higher risk isn't a bad one.

               If we mandate that insurers keep premiums equal for everyone, get ready for a lot of people to have zero access to insurance as they're deemed too risky to cover.

               1. darth_avocado · 1790719408 · focus · HN ↗

                  > But the general principle of some people paying higher premiums than others because they're higher risk isn't a bad one.

                  So someone with cancer should be charged $20k/month then? I am completely healthy and haven’t used my insurance much in the last 10 years. Why are my premiums so high? And why are 65+ year olds not footing most of the bill? I am not advocating for that but just pointing out that were obviously okay with charging for some risk profiles but not others.

         2. mindslight · 1790783376 · focus · HN ↗

            > Why should someone who has an unpatched hole in their roof pay the same rate as someone who maintains their roof?

            You're right - I really should be paying less due to the unpatched holes in one section of my roof. I obviously need no coverage on this part of the house, as the damage (both already occurred and ongoing) are not covered causes of loss. If you know a way I can express this to my insurance company to receive a discount, without them going "this is weird, we're actually raising your rates", please let me know.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.