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. curiouscavalier · 1790709936 · focus · HN ↗

      The issue is that often the data gathered and used with no consideration of other evidence. For example, I had a similar situation of home insurance sending a letter demanding I replace my roof based on drone footage. No issue was immediately obvious from the footage and we had just replaced the roof less than 5 years earlier. We had an inspection done and then sent both proof of replacement and the inspection report. We were told the drone footage alone would be used in their decision, and we still had to replace the roof to keep coverage.

      So it is not necessarily objective, fairly considered observations (and I think pretty different from speeding tickets). At least in our case it was maximally for the benefit of the insurer. I think that is relevant to their claimed premise.

      1. cortesoft · 1790711742 · focus · HN ↗

         Were you able to get insurance from another insurer?

         1. curiouscavalier · 1790712949 · focus · HN ↗

            Yes, that ended up being the solution. Cost aside, I’d find it pretty wasteful to do the replacement.

            1. scottLobster · 1790713314 · focus · HN ↗

               Honestly I'd report it to the state insurance commission. Did they call out any specific issue with the roof at any point? Some kind of new code they were mandating an upgrade to or anything?

               1. curiouscavalier · 1790714610 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yeah, I probably should have reported it at the time. They didn’t cite anything specific even after we requested what in the on-roof (not drone) inspection indicated an issue or was missing from the inspection.

                  Though to be precise, this was over a year ago so I’m not remembering their exact wording. But it likely wasn’t literally “drone footage alone,” but probably something more like “our drone footage and associated analysis” — in any case the effective interpretation being “we don’t care about installation date or your inspection. Replace it or lose coverage.”

                  Not that it makes it right, but there’s enough providers in my area it was less effort to get new coverage than continue to fight them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.