19 ms·

Home insurers are dropping customers based on aerial images

305 points by traviswingo 2y ago

sys_64738 2y ago
Even if you can't get insurance covering the roof, then ask for that to be an exclusion so you can get other insurance covering your home. Personal liability from lack of insurance can bankrupt you.
jmorenoamor 2y ago
Probably an US thing, but, do you specifically have to declare you have a trampoline in order to get your home insured?
walterbell 2y ago
https://archive.is/SSXdN https://archive.is/SSXdN
consultutah 2y ago
Vexcel doesn’t use drones. They use manned aircraft. Drones are almost never used for insurance. There are a couple of companies that do, but the costs are still too high for it to make sense.
- VHRanger 2y ago
  I don't think the problem people have with this is the type of air vehicle used to take the picture
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    Surprisingly, it seems to me that you are wrong. People will absolutely lose their minds whenever they hear about an unmanned aircraft, but never talk about manned aircraft. There have been tons of news articles about "police drones" an other kinds of scaremongering, that never seem to note that the cops using an airplane to follow you in the dark has been a thing for decades. The only new thing is the pilot does not necessarily need to sit in the aircraft.
    - nneonneo 2y ago
      I would definitely mind if the police were following me personally in an airplane…
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        Did you recently rob a bank or carjack an old lady? If not, I sincerely doubt that anyone would go to the trouble of following you around.
        nneonneo 2y ago
        Yes, but clearly an insurance company will go to the trouble of flying a plane around my house. Whether it’s manned or unmanned is immaterial - I wouldn’t want them to do it.
        jeffbee 2y ago
        You want to have insurance but you're not willing to let your insurer inspect the covered assets?
        s1gsegv 2y ago
        Due to the cost of doing so, right. If the aircraft were suddenly unmanned and significantly cheaper to fly in potentially great quantities, it’s easier to justify doing so “just in case.” It’s concerning to think that because police have traditionally had tools that were quite powerful in single use to balance out technology limitations of the time, this balance should not be rethought when the usage becomes significantly more efficient. If you have to get a black van and big dish microphone to surveil someone’s single conversation in the park, it’s going to be employed when there’s already a strong suspicion, seems fair. Now if you’re able to hide a wireless microphone in every tree, computer-transcribe everything that’s said 24/7, and match it with cameras that can capture facial recognition data, you can build a file of everything everyone says in public, just in case you have to find something against them. What’s more, you can have an AI scrutinize every single conversation and sentiment on a scale that is not otherwise possible. All of this uses the same fundamental rights, but clearly the outcome poses a huge problem.
- _tom_ 2y ago
  I suspect the only reason they don't use drones is range. Once they have a match, it'll be drones all the way.
malfist 2y ago
If insurance is individually priced to this degree, what's the point of insurance?
- bottom999mottob 2y ago
  Higher liability means they need to extract more money from you. That's the point of insurance. See: wildfires in California and flooding in Florida causing insurers to pull out. Once the insurance companies lose money, the risk is too high...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mb7733 2y ago
  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...)
  - gmd63 2y ago
    Insurance incentives would drive them to want to predict as accurately as possible who is going to cost them money, and then deny them coverage. They make money from selling to people who are afraid of a calamity but likely won't experience one.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Why are they in the business of denying coverage? They are insurance. They estimate their payouts from the entire pool and price your premiums accordingly. Paying out should therefore not really affect their bottom line if they price the premiums appropriately.
      - gmd63 2y ago
        Home insurance companies are leaving Florida because it's not profitable to operate in an area with so much vulnerability to hurricane damage. Also, the only thing stopping medical insurers from denying coverage or increasing prices for people with pre-existing conditions is the Affordable Care Act.
antisthenes 2y ago
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 detailed.
- 1123581321 2y ago
  I was asked about a trampoline with two major carriers. I believe they would have been satisfied to know it was netted, similarly to how they want pools fenced.
- egeozcan 2y ago
  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.
  - mikepurvis 2y ago
    Probably a case of trying to get something out of the information that happens to be available. Maybe they’ll also adjust your rates based when you get your roof redone or whether you park in your driveway?
  - flutas 2y ago
    It's probably about risk more than anything. Trampoline installed well (i.e. staked down) with proper netting = who cares Trampoline unsecured, no net = wind risk, personal injury risk, death risk
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Honestly from growing up the riskiest bit was when the springs gave out from holding the material. Net or no kids are going to drag it over to the garage one day and jump from the roof onto it. Better hope the webbing the springs mount into is in good shape.
sircastor 2y ago
I'm going to assume that nobody's insurance premiums or deductibles are going down from this data. No analysis is making the insurer say "Oh, that roof is in much better condition despite its age." Insurance feels like the biggest scam in the history of the world. You are legally obligated to pay us for nothing, most of the time.
- ozr 2y ago
  Insurance carriers have an incentive to compete on price like any other business. There are plenty of options. The margins are generally pretty small, and there is a lot of regulation around what portion of payments must be used for claims. There's a few obvious exceptions, but plenty of insurance isn't required.
  - sneed_chucker 2y ago
    They might have an incentive to compete, but I think they also have an incentive to collude. Last time I shopped around for insurance it seemed like the latter was taking place. You're required to get homeowner's insurance if you have a mortgage, and you're required to have car insurance if you want to drive a car on public roads. So the majority of Americans are forced to purchase at least one of these in order to live their normal lives, which makes demand inelastic.
    - lokar 2y ago
      For the car, you only need liability, and you can generally post a bond instead.
    - overstay8930 2y ago
      Collusion is nearly impossible in commodity insurance (i.e. policies you can buy on a website), it’s just way too easy to detect and whistleblowers know they can make a fortune by reporting it. It’s mostly your own governments fault if you can’t find a cheap policy, there are millions of people who will probably never have to file an insurance claim in their life making up for government decisions to insure people who wouldn’t normally be able to be insured because of poor decision making skills.
landedgentry 2y ago
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.
- dmoy 2y ago
  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.
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    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.
    - dmoy 2y ago
      Yea I think that is exactly correct
    - tfehring 2y ago
      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.
    - rufus_foreman 2y ago
      That's not the issue in Florida. The issue in Florida is that "although Florida only accounts for 9 percent of the country’s home insurance claims, it is home to 79 percent of the country’s home insurance lawsuits". That's from https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/florida-homeowners-insurance-crisis/ https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/flor..., which explains how the roofing scams work in that state. The legislature is working on it.
throwaway74432 2y ago
Related, my vehicle insurer keeps jacking up the rates. I've never been in an accident or had a ticket, and I drive 2000 miles per year. But every year up up up. Then they offer I install a tracking device on my car to get my rates back down to a reasonable amount. There seems to be a pattern of insurers wanting to know everything about everyone, and using irrationally higher rates to coerce consent. And I have to pay it or consent to tracking because insurance is mandated by law.
- rchaud 2y ago
  > There seems to be a pattern of insurers wanting to know everything about everyone I see an exciting new revenue stream in their future.
- p1esk 2y ago
  My insurer jacks up the rate even with the tracking device. The rate more than doubled in the last 3 years.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  One of us needs to win a lottery; and force (er, strongly incentivize) Congress to pass a law banning the lowering of insurance prices based on tracking devices.
- aesh2Xa1 2y ago
  Car manufacturers are building telemetry into the vehicle, which they can sell directly to insurance companies. If you buy such a car, your insurer doesn't need you to install anything. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv... My opinion is that the opt-in hardware might have afforded you some discount, maybe. I doubt the same is true for the manufacturer-insurer relationship. I think that pattern is probably more likely to establish a higher baseline for all drivers, and the presence of data can only ever (1) maintain the baseline or (2) harm you.
- syndicatedjelly 2y ago
  Maybe the rise in the prices of new cars, used parts, and labor has an impact.
Bostonian 2y ago
Insurers telling you how to reduce the risk of accidents and property damage is a good thing.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  The article literally opens with a story of an insurer dropping a homeowner for having a roof that's too old with no recourse, even when a third party expert said the roof is good for another decade. > The red-flagged images are providing insurers with ammunition for nonrenewal notices nationwide. I don't think your comment is wrong, but it's not representative of the problem the article is bringing up.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
time0ut 2y ago
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.
- dmoy 2y ago
  You don't have to have home insurance by law, at least not in the US If you don't own your house outright, the bank that owns part of it may require insurance as a prerequisite for loaning you money.
  - wincy 2y ago
    My uncle didn’t have insurance for a house he’d paid off. An arsonist burned it down six months later and then he proceeded to get letters from the city telling him to mow his lawn for the next ten years.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Just because you don't have a livable structure on the property means the property is exempt from any of the property regulations. What a weird rant.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      What does that have to do with insurance?
  - mindslight 2y ago
    You're right about the ultimate legal situation, but there's two problems I see with dropping insurance on a paid off home. The first is that the companies, seemingly operating in lock step, will heavily penalize you if you change your mind and want to go back to insuring. The second is the liability component, whereby simply owning a piece of real estate means you're a juicy target to be found jointly liable for a whole host of things that most people would consider unreasonable - eg someone trespasses, injures themselves, and then sues you. I've long said that one major threat that "regular people" would suffer from the consumer surveillance industry was going to be insurance (another being fine-grained price discrimination). It looks like both are really starting to come into swing. The best time for US privacy legislation (including something analogous to the GDPR) was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
5 years ago, a family friend got an angry letter from the city because he had cleared slightly too much lakefront weeds (and by slightly - I mean very lightly, enough to anger the algorithm lightly). How did they know? Drone. And this was suburban Minnesota. Not even insurance - this was the city of Newport on a power rampage. Turns out there’s also no shortage of general corruption in the police department… https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/footage-shows-newport-police-misconduct-including-sex-in-city-office-report-says https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/footage-shows-newp...
- dylan604 2y ago
  rules are rules. you complaining about this is like football fans complaining about the tight offside calls.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    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.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      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.
    - CubsFan1060 2y ago
      I'm not sure how exactly you're drawing that parallel, but, IMHO, that would be just fine. I suspect people would speed a lot less.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 2y ago
https://archive.ph/SSXdN https://archive.ph/SSXdN
gmd63 2y ago
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 criminals to manufacture damage that wouldn't otherwise happen. 2. There is an obvious incentive for them to chase an endgame of knowing exactly whether you will cost them money or make them money. When they attain this, insurance simply becomes a fortune teller and an instruction manual for Living Without Calamity. If you're denied coverage, you're going to experience something calamitous. If you're accepted, you have the ability to be fine and don't need insurance, unless you aren't sure how to Live Without Calamity. When you are accepted, you're only covered if you surrender your agency and follow their instructions for Living Without Calamity. Basic things like travelers insurance have clauses that void your policy if you scuba dive past 30 feet on your trip. 3. Insurance policies can create toxic incentives for people that hurt society. I filed a claim with Generali travel insurance because my host tested positive for COVID with a take home test, and I canceled my trip. Their web portal indicated that my claim had been received and was awaiting processing. I called incessantly to confirm my claim was good, and was not able to get an answer after several calls that routed through incompetent-by-design help desk employees and into a voicemailbox of a claims processor. Weeks go by and I receive a voicemail from the person I had been trying to contact telling me that I needed a doctor's note confirming that the person had COVID, and a take home test would not suffice. So, a company allegedly tasked with helping the public live safely wanted me to, at the time, ask my COVID infected host to waltz in to the doctor's office and spread around a pathogen that could kill patients. Nice. I guess they weren't medical insurance so they didn't care. And of course no doctor would retroactively go back in time and confirm that a person was positive for a sickness after they had already recovered.
- nradov 2y ago
  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.
steelframe 2y ago
I'm not sure the degree to which insurance companies are legally allowed to share information such as aerial photographs with each other. When I worked at Google I knew a developer who was building a prototype service similar to Google Flights, except for auto and home insurance. I don't think that product ever shipped. The dev on that team told me that a key thing they learned while doing the analysis is that the optimal strategy with auto and home insurance is to automatically switch providers whenever it's time to renew. It could be because your current company has collected things about you that they aren't allowed to share with other insurance companies.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  I think the most common reason is that insurance companies try to attract new customers with lower rates / discounts and welcome gifts. Switching every year means a new insurance company spends their acquisition money on you every year.
  - CapmCrackaWaka 2y ago
    Yeah, people like to think there’s all kinds of grand conspiracies out there when it comes to insurance companies. But they’re all actually very, very boring. All of these pricing algorithms are filed with the DOI, and are public. There is nothing crazy in them. The reason prices to go up at renewal is because that’s just the optimal economics of insurance companies. Get you in at a competitive new business rate and then increase rates at renewal to offset the losses that new business policies incur. The product the OP is talking about made quite a buzz in the business when it was first released (I do think it came out for a while). It was a price comparison tool, and the reason it failed was because it was hard to get the big brand names on board. The big brand names didn’t want to compete on price alone, because they spent so much money on their brand. They already had a ton of customers coming straight to their website. Sorry for any formatting or spelling issues here, I’m using voice to text.
    - steelframe 2y ago
      > But they’re all actually very, very boring. In fact they're actuarially very, very boring!
bvan 2y ago
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.
- rchaud 2y ago
  If this were true, health insurers would have taken a cudgel to the US hospital system decades ago and come up with a more efficient system. They haven't because an opaque system allows them to maintain their own opaque practices.
  - selectodude 2y ago
    Health insurance companies don’t care about what your doctor earns in the same way home insurance companies don’t care about the cost of the roofer. They’re going to price in whatever that cost may be and call it a day. Health insurance has it easier too because there’s not really a concept of correlated risk in human populations. Most people do a decent job avoiding hurting themselves but when a flood comes, there’s not a whole lot anybody can do.
    - jenny91 2y ago
      COVID?
    - chug 2y ago
      Health insurance companies do actually care, unfortunately. They're incentivized to embrace higher prices since they have to spend at least 80% of premiums on payouts. If you have a fixed margin, well, you have to increase premiums to increase profit, so higher prices means more profit.
  - bvan 2y ago
hilux 2y ago
On a similar theme [near-future consequences of data-driven technocracy], read the hilarious _Qualityland_, by Marc-Uwe Kling.
jeffbee 2y ago
Auburn, California, is a mistake and should be uninsurable, and I don't want either my tax dollars or my insurance premiums being used to subsidize the treehouse lifestyle of exurban home owners. Whether this specific person's roof is rotted or not isn't really the point. Right now, the real estate sprawl industry is running their printing press at 110% design speed, trying to convince everyone that people who live on the fringes of civilization are getting a bad deal. But from where I sit, in a fireproof building downtown, I see it differently. We need a massive correction in California, under which we stop subsidizing the firefighting, insurance, and roads that serve the sprawl. The subject property, by the way: https://www.google.com/maps/place/2350+Buttes+View+Ln,+Auburn,+CA+95603/@38.9197857,-121.1693294,604a,35y,94.3h,44.81t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x809b10afb33e9ae1:0x41b76c5ee53f14e4!8m2!3d38.9185662!4d-121.1623808!16s%2Fg%2F11c19_0j05?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/2350+Buttes+View+Ln,+Aubur...
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  The problem is not the sprawl, it’s the out of control construction costs due to regulation and insurance premium caps due to… you guessed it - regulations
- s1gsegv 2y ago
  I can understand feeling like both taxes and insurance premiums are too high, but the ability to make choices other than the specifically least risky one is one that fundamentally allows us to exercise our free will. Those in Auburn are, by the same idea, subsidizing windows that get smashed when parking downtown, or even if you walk, the extra risk that you are hurt by someone while walking in a place with more crime per square mile. You can live far away from a downtown and have to get your car smogged, because we wanted cars in the cities to provide for clean air. I don’t mean we need to accept all risk in society, but for me there’s a very worrying trend against ANY risk/cost that doesn’t directly benefit the person advocating against it. Ultimately I know it comes back to the current economic situation, because if everyone feels like they’re struggling there’s less thought to care for others.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
perihelions 2y ago
Related idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36268907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36268907 ("French tax officials use AI to spot 20k undeclared pools (2022)", 166 comments)
djha-skin 2y ago
I used to work for Verisk, an insurance tech holding company, who owned a company that took pictures of people's roofs using airplanes and special cameras. They got sued over a patent violation with EagleView[1], who claimed the tech idea as their own, and settled. > The strategic alliance allows customers seamless and integrated access to EagleView technology within Verisk’s Xactware platform Xactware is a product that customers (read: insurance companies) use to figure out how much money to pay on a claim. The whole idea is to speed up the claims process. Insurance agents don't need to go out to people's houses to examine roof damage. But we also had a department doing some pretty sophisticated stuff around preventing claims fraud, so I'm not surprised. 1: https://www.verisk.com/company/newsroom/verisk-and-eagleview-technology-corporation-settle-patent-suit/ https://www.verisk.com/company/newsroom/verisk-and-eagleview...
- 2four2 2y ago
  I recently started going through many big data collectors and expressing my rights to know, delete, and stop selling my information. Verisk makes the process notoriously difficult compared to other companies, you have to start an "ethics" report in their ticketing system https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/69464/index.html https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/69464/ind...
  - passwordoops 2y ago
    Is there a list of companies out there you can share, or are you going about it on your own?
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    Real question: is something like aerial photography of your roof really subject to privacy laws?
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      IANAL, but in the US, it depends on whether could have reasonably expected that their stuff was hidden. If your roof is sloped so that a person on the street could get the same information by walking around the block, then aerial surveillance is just a faster way to get that public observation. In contrast, if you set up a high fence around your pool in order to sunbathe naked, aerial photography would probably be an invasion of your privacy? If your roof was designed in a similar way, one might be able to argue it was wrong for the company to observe aspects of it without permission. (Although they might have gotten permission via the insurance contract...) I think this legal standard becomes tricky (or at least ought to receive more scrutiny) when we start talking about pervasiveness and permanence. Just because I know that an arbitrary person might take a picture of me in public doesn't mean I expect every single thing I do outside to be recorded forever by a technological invisible stalker hovering over my shoulder at every outdoor moment.
contingencies 2y ago
So wattle-it-be... switch insurers, live underground, or plant trees? Wattles are fast-growing and there's plenty of choice. http://worldwidewattle.com/ http://worldwidewattle.com/
comprev 2y ago
Interesting to see this pop up on HN. I once did some work with a large international data broker who had recently acquired a company which specialised on aerial photography and ML for identifying potential insurance risks. I'm an infra guy by trade and really enjoyed learning about the tech while on their team. Mind blowing stuff to me!!
jdhzzz 2y ago
Related (2010) on finding untaxed swimming pools on Long Island using Google Earth: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/heads-up-google-earth-used-to-track-illegal-pools-on-long-island/1916816/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/heads-up-google-earth-...
lamontcg 2y ago
> “If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, you should pay more than somebody with a brand new roof,” If you've been paying for insurance for 20 years with one company, then I'd say that is certainly a dick move to drop you right before it might pay out. What even is the point then?
- Netcob 2y ago
  The (lesser) dick move is also pitting customers against each other.
  - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    Divide et impera. Works with insurance, social security, and third world countries.
- almostnormal 2y ago
  Do car insurances pay the full price for crashed old cars? If roofs are designed with a similarly limited expected useful life lower payout would make sense like for cars?
- Crunchified 2y ago
  It is NOT the insurance company's job to replace a worn-out roof. That is YOUR responsibility! If a roof on your home is not up to the proven (albeit occasional) stresses of your local environment (including snowfall, winds, volcanic ash, etc.), whether due to quality, design, or wear, I see no reason why the insurer should not modify its indemnity. I will grant you that a decent insurer would allow you to petition for a review based on any verifiable additional information that you, as owner and insured, might be able to present.
medion 2y ago
This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution to the point where veins on a tree leaf are perceptible. We are literally going to be monitored from the sky by AI for a lot of things, and from a legal standpoint at this stage there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it.
- killingtime74 2y ago
  (Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government. Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things. Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Recreation_Grounds_Co_Ltd_v_Taylor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec... The Privacy Act (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-privacy-act/rights-and-responsibilities https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-priv...)
  - medion 2y ago
    Haha, by your reckoning why not monitor all comms for any lies? This is why we can’t have nice things. We are walking into a new Robodebt scenario run by AI - it’s all too much living in a constant state of surveillance and it’s not a world I want to live in.
    - killingtime74 2y ago
      I don't represent any view point on the law just telling you how it is. There's always multiple competing priorities. Ultimately not a politician so it doesn't really matter what I think. If we're talking morality I don't see how it's moral to ask the law to protect you from being found out doing the wrong thing. If these people don't pay their fair share the rest of us have to pay more. What if a law change prevents the government from enforcing environmental legislation from illegal land clearing or dumping? What if a farmer illegally diverts more water than they are allowed to from a river or with a well? It's not just about you and me but the whole country. On robodebt: that has nothing to do with privacy, tax records aren't private from the government? That's just bad tax enforcement.
tptacek 2y ago
I don't really understand the privacy concern here. To wit: insurers can demand actual inspection of your home when making underwriting decisions. The condition of your house is very much their business. Why is an aerial photograph of your roof, which everybody in the world already has on Google Maps, such a big deal?
- worik 2y ago
  The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are simply caught in the wash it is unfair This is part of the huge systematic disruptions we are all going to have to adapt to, or die from, due to climate change Worrying times
  - Nifty3929 2y ago
    Insurance companies are keen to align risks with premiums. The more accurately they do so, the less volatility they will have. And in the short run, probably more profit as well. This also helps consumers, where lower-risk folks will overpay less, and higher-risk folks will be required to lower their risk or contribute more in premiums.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You (say) have a trampoline. I do not. We share an insurer. Our insurer asked, when you applied, if you had a trampoline. Your trampoline materially increases the risk that insurance is going to have to pay to cover a lawsuit on your property. You lied, and said you didn't. I am now paying to subsidize your trampoline. Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses? Worrying times... for pirate trampolines!
    - RomanAlexander 2y ago
      Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text
kmbfjr 2y ago
Allstate refused to offer a policy quote because my house is fuzzed out on its street view photo from 2011.
switch007 2y ago
We are sprinting towards a dystopia of "computer says no". Decisions taken affecting your life and finances made by computers delivered by minimum wage powerless staff. I'm sure healthcare insurance companies are inspired by the actions of the home insurance companies. "you declared you never smoked but our drone footage shows you and a plume of smoke in the same area. The AI detected it as cigarette smoke. Your coverage is cancelled and this is our final decision. "
d--b 2y ago
A legal question here: are we allowed to shoot down a drone that snoops over our house?
- ezfe 2y ago
  just in case this is serious, no
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
  Full choke and magnum turkey loads. If that doesn't work, there are tutorials on YouTube for building guided anti aircraft missiles.
- speedylight 2y ago
  Just get a high powered laser and burn them, if its good enough for the US military its good enough for me.
superultra 2y ago
My good friend works as an insurance agent. According to him, insurers are dropping customers based on anything right now. It’s caused chaos in the agency business, particularly in certain states. My bet is aerial images are just one way of many that they’re dropping customers.
londons_explore 2y ago
> If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, It amazes me that people in the US would even consider installing a roof that would only last 20 years. In the UK, you wouldn't consider reroofing anything that your grandparents remember being installed. Ie. Stuff doesn't get reroofed till it's 100 years old. Even then, you'll normally inspect and only replace the damaged bits. My 350 year old house still has part of its original roof and slate tiles etc.
- hikingsimulator 2y ago
  The weather in the US can be wild compared to what Western Europe is used to. England doesn't have to deal with the same events.
  - rvba 2y ago
    Those Ukrainian concrete buildings can take a bomb and still stand...
- zwayhowder 2y ago
  My house is about 100 years old and still has the original concrete tile roof, with a stack of spare tiles under the house ready if needed. An extension that was done in the 1980s has had to have its roof replaced once already due to what I have to assume was poor workmanship by the builder.
- EligibleDecoy 2y ago
  It’s called “money.” That is the reason. Slate roofs are common in the UK, and using synthetic slate is $7-12/sqft, whereas bitumen/asphalt shingles which are common in the USA cost $0.50-$1.00/sqft. Average home in the USA is 2,200 sq ft with a roof size of 1,700 sq ft. So $1,700 vs $11,900 is quite a difference (and that was being most generous, excluding installation costs, etc) So basically, average person who owns a house has a big house, and big roofs are already expensive. Regardless of wanting to get a high quality roof that would last more than 30 years, that requires capital - more than the average owner really has access too. Sources: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/slate-ro https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/slate-ro... https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/shingle- https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/shingle-... https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/average-square-footage- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/average-square-footage-... https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/roofing-stats/ https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/roofing-stats/
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
Works where archive.ph is blocked: https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=1812931943850&w=GaxRXZW2VcqJrPtvMfQusroKm9TmEDEy https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=1812931943850&w=GaxRXZW2Vc...
- widforss 2y ago
  Much appreciated
dbg31415 2y ago
I think this is fine, BUT... I think they should have to give people time to fix the problem before dropping them. A neighbor literally just got a letter in the mail, "We think your trees are over your roof. Policy cancelled immediately." (The tree was over his daughter's playhouse in the back yard, the algorithm saw shingles obstructed by a tree branch and flagged it. They don't even bother with human review.) There should be a warning period, "Hey we saw this, and if you don't fix it in 90 days we'll have to drop you." They certainly take money before doing an inspection... they're happy to have you start paying them right away as soon as you move in. Anyway there should be a time period for cut off of service. Insurance companies are free to do inspections, but there's still the stress that getting a notice like that does to someone. These days, who even reads letters from insurance companies in the mail?! I mean, I just chuck anything with a logo in the recycling. And, from what I can tell, the insurance company dropped my neighbor when they sent the letter... so he didn't even know he wasn't insured until he got the letter. Anyway... these companies aren't your friends. They're all out to screw you. USAA screwed me over bad recently, to the tune of nearly $300k... they forced me to use their contractor (or we won't cover your temp housing), said not to worry and promised me a "5 year workmanship warranty" on the work done by their contractor... but when the contractor was utter shit, they put me through their mediation, where their mediator said, "Yeah all this work done by the contractor is junk, it all has to be re-done... if they don't fix it, we'll eat their lunch!" but ultimately they didn't enforcing any of that with the contractor and let the contractor off without any consequences -- even insisted I pay the contractor. "Oh you had no right to expect the work would be professionally done..." the contractor said in court. It was all total BS. And they said, "USAA may promise you one thing, but contract we have means we aren't liable for any damages to your house, 35-foot trees we killed, foundations we cracked, garage doors we backed into, things our endless stream of disorganized day-laborers stole, etc..." USAA's mediation process was really just a play to run out the statue of limitations on the contract too, I felt. =P Live and learn... but insurance companies are heartless bastards. You can't trust them, and even the "good" ones will screw you if they can. Tell you one thing, and do another... If you have a flood, call your lawyer first, the insurance company second, and the water mitigation folks third. Get it all in writing, take more photos than you ever thought necessary, and hope you have an adjuster who isn't having a crappy day that day.
hnburnsy 2y ago
I wish insurance was more flexible with risk and deductibles, 20 year old roof, your deductible is 20000, 5 year old roof your deductible is 500, something that equalizes the risk without the need to drop customers. Heck I would self insure or set an extremely high deductible for rebuilding, but I still need coverage for any liability risk like when the mailman trips on my sidewalk.
- illusive4080 2y ago
  You can get basic liability coverage if that’s what you desire. But be prepared to pay out of your pocket in case of total loss. If you have a mortgage you’re almost certainly required to hold coverage.
- Kalium 2y ago
  That's only possible when the regulatory environment allows it. If your insurance regulators won't allow that kind of flexibility, then they have to look for other options. This is often approached through the lens of consumer protection. As a result, making thing flexible to allow insurance companies to say "Hey, you really need a new roof, but if you choose not to here's the price of that risk" is not prioritized. Approving rate increases is.
bookofjoe 2y ago
>If satellite launches go as planned, images could be updated daily by 2030, according to Neil Pearson, a consultant who works with imagery companies. >"It could get interesting from a privacy standpoint as... a property could be monitored daily at high resolution," he said. "It is a bit Orwellian."
gjs4786 2y ago
that there is any effort at all to point out why this is okay is bewildering. it's antisocial behavior. there is a reason this is on hn, folks. and there is a reason why basic car insurance is not. not today, anyway. its because it is disruptive, obnoxious behavior that juts out and has jagged edges, and people dont stand for that. this isn't about my roof, or yours. people are quick to point out, "fwiw, they could cancel your insurance right now! they arent required to even give it to you, so yeah, they can do that" or, "they're perfectly within the law to do it, next". I paraphrase here, but regardless. I confidently say to that: Hah! then the law got it wrong, then. and the law needs to change. that is specifically the problem. they simply have too much power. and now they're rubbing our faces on it while a bunch of you rush to find why that's [legally] alright, while you only consider why it makes sense to you, not why it doesn't make sense to others. a critical oversight. they could have gone about this 100 different ways. fleet drones. really? I predict that they are preparing substantial layoffs; thats the only thing that even begins to explain this situation. out with the old, in with the drones
azlev 2y ago
Can someone explain to my house insurance is so important? I live outside USA and I never bought an insurance, a common situation in my country.
- sarchertech 2y ago
  It’s required if you have a mortgage. Even if you don’t have a mortgage, your home is probably worth several times your annual salary. Most people can’t afford that loss if it burns down, gets hit by a tornado etc…
  - azlev 2y ago
    Thank you.
  - danans 2y ago
    Also, consider that for a great many Americans, their house is the only significant asset they have. A huge number of Americans have no retirement savings at all [1]. For some of these people who do own a house, selling it at retirement is the only way they can avoid poverty (or at least maintain their quality of life), especially with the possibility of a future government significantly cutting Social Security benefits. Even those with retirement savings often treat their houses as an asset to be leveraged or sold at retirement to help fund the latter stages of their lives [2]. These are all good reasons to carry property insurance even if you don't have a mortgage on the property that requires it. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-baby-boomers-with-no-retirement-savings/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-baby-boomers-with-no... 2. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/11/how-americans-are-using-their-homes-to-fund-retirement https://www.axios.com/2023/03/11/how-americans-are-using-the...
    - datascienced 2y ago
      Probably why it is smart to buy a property where most of the value is the land. If you can!
      - 2y ago
fostware 2y ago
It's been happening for years. Anything to limit the number of onsite visits needed because that takes a lot more time. I know insurance brokers who have revisited a clients renewal, because Google Maps and/or the council's GIS photography shows activity or buildings counter to the client declarations. Is it a final decision? No. It's used to prompt the client to review their coverage and amend their submitted documents. Sometimes, those amendments mean the brokers are no longer able to get coverage, and the clients go somewhere else.
imoverclocked 2y ago
This tech implementation seems like the worst HOA on steroids. Anyone have a neighbor that complains about one too many daffodils in the mandatory daffodil plot? Well, now they have a new tool for compliance.
Sparkyte 2y ago
The problem with aerial photos is that not always do these photos provide enough detail they can provide deceptive data. It is better if insurance companies send field workers to check the premises.
krunck 2y ago
My insurance company asked me for photos of our roof to prove it was metal and not asphalt. From a distance it looks like asphalt because it is metal with a stone grit coating just like asphalt. Could a photo from a drone see this?. Maybe. I also live under the final approach flight path of the local airport so maybe they couldn't verify using their drone.

305 points by traviswingo 2y ago

Even if you can't get insurance covering the roof, then ask for that to be an exclusion so you can get other insurance covering your home. Personal liability from lack of insurance can bankrupt you.

jmorenoamor 2y ago

Probably an US thing, but, do you specifically have to declare you have a trampoline in order to get your home insured?

walterbell 2y ago

https://archive.is/SSXdN https://archive.is/SSXdN

consultutah 2y ago

Vexcel doesn’t use drones. They use manned aircraft. Drones are almost never used for insurance. There are a couple of companies that do, but the costs are still too high for it to make sense.

VHRanger 2y ago
I don't think the problem people have with this is the type of air vehicle used to take the picture
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Surprisingly, it seems to me that you are wrong. People will absolutely lose their minds whenever they hear about an unmanned aircraft, but never talk about manned aircraft. There have been tons of news articles about "police drones" an other kinds of scaremongering, that never seem to note that the cops using an airplane to follow you in the dark has been a thing for decades. The only new thing is the pilot does not necessarily need to sit in the aircraft.
  - nneonneo 2y ago
    I would definitely mind if the police were following me personally in an airplane…
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      Did you recently rob a bank or carjack an old lady? If not, I sincerely doubt that anyone would go to the trouble of following you around.
      - nneonneo 2y ago
        Yes, but clearly an insurance company will go to the trouble of flying a plane around my house. Whether it’s manned or unmanned is immaterial - I wouldn’t want them to do it.
        jeffbee 2y ago
        You want to have insurance but you're not willing to let your insurer inspect the covered assets?
      - s1gsegv 2y ago
        Due to the cost of doing so, right. If the aircraft were suddenly unmanned and significantly cheaper to fly in potentially great quantities, it’s easier to justify doing so “just in case.” It’s concerning to think that because police have traditionally had tools that were quite powerful in single use to balance out technology limitations of the time, this balance should not be rethought when the usage becomes significantly more efficient. If you have to get a black van and big dish microphone to surveil someone’s single conversation in the park, it’s going to be employed when there’s already a strong suspicion, seems fair. Now if you’re able to hide a wireless microphone in every tree, computer-transcribe everything that’s said 24/7, and match it with cameras that can capture facial recognition data, you can build a file of everything everyone says in public, just in case you have to find something against them. What’s more, you can have an AI scrutinize every single conversation and sentiment on a scale that is not otherwise possible. All of this uses the same fundamental rights, but clearly the outcome poses a huge problem.
_tom_ 2y ago
I suspect the only reason they don't use drones is range. Once they have a match, it'll be drones all the way.

malfist 2y ago

If insurance is individually priced to this degree, what's the point of insurance?

bottom999mottob 2y ago
Higher liability means they need to extract more money from you. That's the point of insurance. See: wildfires in California and flooding in Florida causing insurers to pull out. Once the insurance companies lose money, the risk is too high...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mb7733 2y ago
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...)
- gmd63 2y ago
  Insurance incentives would drive them to want to predict as accurately as possible who is going to cost them money, and then deny them coverage. They make money from selling to people who are afraid of a calamity but likely won't experience one.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Why are they in the business of denying coverage? They are insurance. They estimate their payouts from the entire pool and price your premiums accordingly. Paying out should therefore not really affect their bottom line if they price the premiums appropriately.
    - gmd63 2y ago
      Home insurance companies are leaving Florida because it's not profitable to operate in an area with so much vulnerability to hurricane damage. Also, the only thing stopping medical insurers from denying coverage or increasing prices for people with pre-existing conditions is the Affordable Care Act.

antisthenes 2y ago

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 detailed.

1123581321 2y ago
I was asked about a trampoline with two major carriers. I believe they would have been satisfied to know it was netted, similarly to how they want pools fenced.
egeozcan 2y ago
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.
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  Probably a case of trying to get something out of the information that happens to be available. Maybe they’ll also adjust your rates based when you get your roof redone or whether you park in your driveway?
- flutas 2y ago
  It's probably about risk more than anything. Trampoline installed well (i.e. staked down) with proper netting = who cares Trampoline unsecured, no net = wind risk, personal injury risk, death risk
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Honestly from growing up the riskiest bit was when the springs gave out from holding the material. Net or no kids are going to drag it over to the garage one day and jump from the roof onto it. Better hope the webbing the springs mount into is in good shape.

sircastor 2y ago

I'm going to assume that nobody's insurance premiums or deductibles are going down from this data. No analysis is making the insurer say "Oh, that roof is in much better condition despite its age." Insurance feels like the biggest scam in the history of the world. You are legally obligated to pay us for nothing, most of the time.

ozr 2y ago
Insurance carriers have an incentive to compete on price like any other business. There are plenty of options. The margins are generally pretty small, and there is a lot of regulation around what portion of payments must be used for claims. There's a few obvious exceptions, but plenty of insurance isn't required.
- sneed_chucker 2y ago
  They might have an incentive to compete, but I think they also have an incentive to collude. Last time I shopped around for insurance it seemed like the latter was taking place. You're required to get homeowner's insurance if you have a mortgage, and you're required to have car insurance if you want to drive a car on public roads. So the majority of Americans are forced to purchase at least one of these in order to live their normal lives, which makes demand inelastic.
  - lokar 2y ago
    For the car, you only need liability, and you can generally post a bond instead.
  - overstay8930 2y ago
    Collusion is nearly impossible in commodity insurance (i.e. policies you can buy on a website), it’s just way too easy to detect and whistleblowers know they can make a fortune by reporting it. It’s mostly your own governments fault if you can’t find a cheap policy, there are millions of people who will probably never have to file an insurance claim in their life making up for government decisions to insure people who wouldn’t normally be able to be insured because of poor decision making skills.

landedgentry 2y ago

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.

dmoy 2y ago
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.
- bluejekyll 2y ago
  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.
  - dmoy 2y ago
    Yea I think that is exactly correct
  - tfehring 2y ago
    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.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    That's not the issue in Florida. The issue in Florida is that "although Florida only accounts for 9 percent of the country’s home insurance claims, it is home to 79 percent of the country’s home insurance lawsuits". That's from https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/florida-homeowners-insurance-crisis/ https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/flor..., which explains how the roofing scams work in that state. The legislature is working on it.

throwaway74432 2y ago

Related, my vehicle insurer keeps jacking up the rates. I've never been in an accident or had a ticket, and I drive 2000 miles per year. But every year up up up. Then they offer I install a tracking device on my car to get my rates back down to a reasonable amount. There seems to be a pattern of insurers wanting to know everything about everyone, and using irrationally higher rates to coerce consent. And I have to pay it or consent to tracking because insurance is mandated by law.

rchaud 2y ago
> There seems to be a pattern of insurers wanting to know everything about everyone I see an exciting new revenue stream in their future.
p1esk 2y ago
My insurer jacks up the rate even with the tracking device. The rate more than doubled in the last 3 years.
gjsman-1000 2y ago
One of us needs to win a lottery; and force (er, strongly incentivize) Congress to pass a law banning the lowering of insurance prices based on tracking devices.
aesh2Xa1 2y ago
Car manufacturers are building telemetry into the vehicle, which they can sell directly to insurance companies. If you buy such a car, your insurer doesn't need you to install anything. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driver-tracking-insurance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/technology/carmakers-driv... My opinion is that the opt-in hardware might have afforded you some discount, maybe. I doubt the same is true for the manufacturer-insurer relationship. I think that pattern is probably more likely to establish a higher baseline for all drivers, and the presence of data can only ever (1) maintain the baseline or (2) harm you.
syndicatedjelly 2y ago
Maybe the rise in the prices of new cars, used parts, and labor has an impact.

Bostonian 2y ago

Insurers telling you how to reduce the risk of accidents and property damage is a good thing.

bastawhiz 2y ago
The article literally opens with a story of an insurer dropping a homeowner for having a roof that's too old with no recourse, even when a third party expert said the roof is good for another decade. > The red-flagged images are providing insurers with ammunition for nonrenewal notices nationwide. I don't think your comment is wrong, but it's not representative of the problem the article is bringing up.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

time0ut 2y ago

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.

dmoy 2y ago
You don't have to have home insurance by law, at least not in the US If you don't own your house outright, the bank that owns part of it may require insurance as a prerequisite for loaning you money.
- wincy 2y ago
  My uncle didn’t have insurance for a house he’d paid off. An arsonist burned it down six months later and then he proceeded to get letters from the city telling him to mow his lawn for the next ten years.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Just because you don't have a livable structure on the property means the property is exempt from any of the property regulations. What a weird rant.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    What does that have to do with insurance?
- mindslight 2y ago
  You're right about the ultimate legal situation, but there's two problems I see with dropping insurance on a paid off home. The first is that the companies, seemingly operating in lock step, will heavily penalize you if you change your mind and want to go back to insuring. The second is the liability component, whereby simply owning a piece of real estate means you're a juicy target to be found jointly liable for a whole host of things that most people would consider unreasonable - eg someone trespasses, injures themselves, and then sues you. I've long said that one major threat that "regular people" would suffer from the consumer surveillance industry was going to be insurance (another being fine-grained price discrimination). It looks like both are really starting to come into swing. The best time for US privacy legislation (including something analogous to the GDPR) was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

5 years ago, a family friend got an angry letter from the city because he had cleared slightly too much lakefront weeds (and by slightly - I mean very lightly, enough to anger the algorithm lightly). How did they know? Drone. And this was suburban Minnesota. Not even insurance - this was the city of Newport on a power rampage. Turns out there’s also no shortage of general corruption in the police department… https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/footage-shows-newport-police-misconduct-including-sex-in-city-office-report-says https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/footage-shows-newp...

dylan604 2y ago
rules are rules. you complaining about this is like football fans complaining about the tight offside calls.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  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.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    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.
  - CubsFan1060 2y ago
    I'm not sure how exactly you're drawing that parallel, but, IMHO, that would be just fine. I suspect people would speed a lot less.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

denton-scratch 2y ago

https://archive.ph/SSXdN https://archive.ph/SSXdN

gmd63 2y ago

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 criminals to manufacture damage that wouldn't otherwise happen. 2. There is an obvious incentive for them to chase an endgame of knowing exactly whether you will cost them money or make them money. When they attain this, insurance simply becomes a fortune teller and an instruction manual for Living Without Calamity. If you're denied coverage, you're going to experience something calamitous. If you're accepted, you have the ability to be fine and don't need insurance, unless you aren't sure how to Live Without Calamity. When you are accepted, you're only covered if you surrender your agency and follow their instructions for Living Without Calamity. Basic things like travelers insurance have clauses that void your policy if you scuba dive past 30 feet on your trip. 3. Insurance policies can create toxic incentives for people that hurt society. I filed a claim with Generali travel insurance because my host tested positive for COVID with a take home test, and I canceled my trip. Their web portal indicated that my claim had been received and was awaiting processing. I called incessantly to confirm my claim was good, and was not able to get an answer after several calls that routed through incompetent-by-design help desk employees and into a voicemailbox of a claims processor. Weeks go by and I receive a voicemail from the person I had been trying to contact telling me that I needed a doctor's note confirming that the person had COVID, and a take home test would not suffice. So, a company allegedly tasked with helping the public live safely wanted me to, at the time, ask my COVID infected host to waltz in to the doctor's office and spread around a pathogen that could kill patients. Nice. I guess they weren't medical insurance so they didn't care. And of course no doctor would retroactively go back in time and confirm that a person was positive for a sickness after they had already recovered.

nradov 2y ago
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.

steelframe 2y ago

I'm not sure the degree to which insurance companies are legally allowed to share information such as aerial photographs with each other. When I worked at Google I knew a developer who was building a prototype service similar to Google Flights, except for auto and home insurance. I don't think that product ever shipped. The dev on that team told me that a key thing they learned while doing the analysis is that the optimal strategy with auto and home insurance is to automatically switch providers whenever it's time to renew. It could be because your current company has collected things about you that they aren't allowed to share with other insurance companies.

t0mas88 2y ago
I think the most common reason is that insurance companies try to attract new customers with lower rates / discounts and welcome gifts. Switching every year means a new insurance company spends their acquisition money on you every year.
- CapmCrackaWaka 2y ago
  Yeah, people like to think there’s all kinds of grand conspiracies out there when it comes to insurance companies. But they’re all actually very, very boring. All of these pricing algorithms are filed with the DOI, and are public. There is nothing crazy in them. The reason prices to go up at renewal is because that’s just the optimal economics of insurance companies. Get you in at a competitive new business rate and then increase rates at renewal to offset the losses that new business policies incur. The product the OP is talking about made quite a buzz in the business when it was first released (I do think it came out for a while). It was a price comparison tool, and the reason it failed was because it was hard to get the big brand names on board. The big brand names didn’t want to compete on price alone, because they spent so much money on their brand. They already had a ton of customers coming straight to their website. Sorry for any formatting or spelling issues here, I’m using voice to text.
  - steelframe 2y ago
    > But they’re all actually very, very boring. In fact they're actuarially very, very boring!

bvan 2y ago

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.

rchaud 2y ago
If this were true, health insurers would have taken a cudgel to the US hospital system decades ago and come up with a more efficient system. They haven't because an opaque system allows them to maintain their own opaque practices.
- selectodude 2y ago
  Health insurance companies don’t care about what your doctor earns in the same way home insurance companies don’t care about the cost of the roofer. They’re going to price in whatever that cost may be and call it a day. Health insurance has it easier too because there’s not really a concept of correlated risk in human populations. Most people do a decent job avoiding hurting themselves but when a flood comes, there’s not a whole lot anybody can do.
  - jenny91 2y ago
    COVID?
  - chug 2y ago
    Health insurance companies do actually care, unfortunately. They're incentivized to embrace higher prices since they have to spend at least 80% of premiums on payouts. If you have a fixed margin, well, you have to increase premiums to increase profit, so higher prices means more profit.
- bvan 2y ago

hilux 2y ago

On a similar theme [near-future consequences of data-driven technocracy], read the hilarious _Qualityland_, by Marc-Uwe Kling.

jeffbee 2y ago

Auburn, California, is a mistake and should be uninsurable, and I don't want either my tax dollars or my insurance premiums being used to subsidize the treehouse lifestyle of exurban home owners. Whether this specific person's roof is rotted or not isn't really the point. Right now, the real estate sprawl industry is running their printing press at 110% design speed, trying to convince everyone that people who live on the fringes of civilization are getting a bad deal. But from where I sit, in a fireproof building downtown, I see it differently. We need a massive correction in California, under which we stop subsidizing the firefighting, insurance, and roads that serve the sprawl. The subject property, by the way: https://www.google.com/maps/place/2350+Buttes+View+Ln,+Auburn,+CA+95603/@38.9197857,-121.1693294,604a,35y,94.3h,44.81t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x809b10afb33e9ae1:0x41b76c5ee53f14e4!8m2!3d38.9185662!4d-121.1623808!16s%2Fg%2F11c19_0j05?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/2350+Buttes+View+Ln,+Aubur...

dilyevsky 2y ago
The problem is not the sprawl, it’s the out of control construction costs due to regulation and insurance premium caps due to… you guessed it - regulations
s1gsegv 2y ago
I can understand feeling like both taxes and insurance premiums are too high, but the ability to make choices other than the specifically least risky one is one that fundamentally allows us to exercise our free will. Those in Auburn are, by the same idea, subsidizing windows that get smashed when parking downtown, or even if you walk, the extra risk that you are hurt by someone while walking in a place with more crime per square mile. You can live far away from a downtown and have to get your car smogged, because we wanted cars in the cities to provide for clean air. I don’t mean we need to accept all risk in society, but for me there’s a very worrying trend against ANY risk/cost that doesn’t directly benefit the person advocating against it. Ultimately I know it comes back to the current economic situation, because if everyone feels like they’re struggling there’s less thought to care for others.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

perihelions 2y ago

Related idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36268907 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36268907 ("French tax officials use AI to spot 20k undeclared pools (2022)", 166 comments)

djha-skin 2y ago

I used to work for Verisk, an insurance tech holding company, who owned a company that took pictures of people's roofs using airplanes and special cameras. They got sued over a patent violation with EagleView[1], who claimed the tech idea as their own, and settled. > The strategic alliance allows customers seamless and integrated access to EagleView technology within Verisk’s Xactware platform Xactware is a product that customers (read: insurance companies) use to figure out how much money to pay on a claim. The whole idea is to speed up the claims process. Insurance agents don't need to go out to people's houses to examine roof damage. But we also had a department doing some pretty sophisticated stuff around preventing claims fraud, so I'm not surprised. 1: https://www.verisk.com/company/newsroom/verisk-and-eagleview-technology-corporation-settle-patent-suit/ https://www.verisk.com/company/newsroom/verisk-and-eagleview...

2four2 2y ago
I recently started going through many big data collectors and expressing my rights to know, delete, and stop selling my information. Verisk makes the process notoriously difficult compared to other companies, you have to start an "ethics" report in their ticketing system https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/69464/index.html https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/69464/ind...
- passwordoops 2y ago
  Is there a list of companies out there you can share, or are you going about it on your own?
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Real question: is something like aerial photography of your roof really subject to privacy laws?
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    IANAL, but in the US, it depends on whether could have reasonably expected that their stuff was hidden. If your roof is sloped so that a person on the street could get the same information by walking around the block, then aerial surveillance is just a faster way to get that public observation. In contrast, if you set up a high fence around your pool in order to sunbathe naked, aerial photography would probably be an invasion of your privacy? If your roof was designed in a similar way, one might be able to argue it was wrong for the company to observe aspects of it without permission. (Although they might have gotten permission via the insurance contract...) I think this legal standard becomes tricky (or at least ought to receive more scrutiny) when we start talking about pervasiveness and permanence. Just because I know that an arbitrary person might take a picture of me in public doesn't mean I expect every single thing I do outside to be recorded forever by a technological invisible stalker hovering over my shoulder at every outdoor moment.

contingencies 2y ago

So wattle-it-be... switch insurers, live underground, or plant trees? Wattles are fast-growing and there's plenty of choice. http://worldwidewattle.com/ http://worldwidewattle.com/

comprev 2y ago

Interesting to see this pop up on HN. I once did some work with a large international data broker who had recently acquired a company which specialised on aerial photography and ML for identifying potential insurance risks. I'm an infra guy by trade and really enjoyed learning about the tech while on their team. Mind blowing stuff to me!!

jdhzzz 2y ago

Related (2010) on finding untaxed swimming pools on Long Island using Google Earth: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/heads-up-google-earth-used-to-track-illegal-pools-on-long-island/1916816/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/heads-up-google-earth-...

lamontcg 2y ago

> “If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, you should pay more than somebody with a brand new roof,” If you've been paying for insurance for 20 years with one company, then I'd say that is certainly a dick move to drop you right before it might pay out. What even is the point then?

Netcob 2y ago
The (lesser) dick move is also pitting customers against each other.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  Divide et impera. Works with insurance, social security, and third world countries.
almostnormal 2y ago
Do car insurances pay the full price for crashed old cars? If roofs are designed with a similarly limited expected useful life lower payout would make sense like for cars?
Crunchified 2y ago
It is NOT the insurance company's job to replace a worn-out roof. That is YOUR responsibility! If a roof on your home is not up to the proven (albeit occasional) stresses of your local environment (including snowfall, winds, volcanic ash, etc.), whether due to quality, design, or wear, I see no reason why the insurer should not modify its indemnity. I will grant you that a decent insurer would allow you to petition for a review based on any verifiable additional information that you, as owner and insured, might be able to present.

medion 2y ago

This aerial stuff now enhanced by AI is a privacy rights nightmare - in Australia, local councils are utilizing high res images shot by plane, which are AI analysed for infractions - ie. Illegal outbuildings, cut trees, earth works greater than a metre in depth, solar panels placed without auth etc. This kind of tech is going to be abused by both the private and public sector to no end. The images have a resolution to the point where veins on a tree leaf are perceptible. We are literally going to be monitored from the sky by AI for a lot of things, and from a legal standpoint at this stage there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it.

killingtime74 2y ago
(Am Australian lawyer) there's no privacy recognised in any of those things you're talking about. Simple solution is don't lie to insurers or the government. Of course we can elect politicians that change the law. Might be a hard sell if the motivation is to stop detection of illegal things. Sources: (no general right to privacy) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Recreation_Grounds_Co_Ltd_v_Taylor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Rec... The Privacy Act (https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-privacy-act/rights-and-responsibilities https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-legislation/the-priv...)
- medion 2y ago
  Haha, by your reckoning why not monitor all comms for any lies? This is why we can’t have nice things. We are walking into a new Robodebt scenario run by AI - it’s all too much living in a constant state of surveillance and it’s not a world I want to live in.
  - killingtime74 2y ago
    I don't represent any view point on the law just telling you how it is. There's always multiple competing priorities. Ultimately not a politician so it doesn't really matter what I think. If we're talking morality I don't see how it's moral to ask the law to protect you from being found out doing the wrong thing. If these people don't pay their fair share the rest of us have to pay more. What if a law change prevents the government from enforcing environmental legislation from illegal land clearing or dumping? What if a farmer illegally diverts more water than they are allowed to from a river or with a well? It's not just about you and me but the whole country. On robodebt: that has nothing to do with privacy, tax records aren't private from the government? That's just bad tax enforcement.

tptacek 2y ago

I don't really understand the privacy concern here. To wit: insurers can demand actual inspection of your home when making underwriting decisions. The condition of your house is very much their business. Why is an aerial photograph of your roof, which everybody in the world already has on Google Maps, such a big deal?

worik 2y ago
The problem is the culling Insurance companies are very keen to get as much risk as possible off their books before the climate gets even more extreme in its volatility Good goes with bad, so long as the bad goes, some good going too is undesirable but OK because they are aware if the catastrophic climate events looming The insurance companies are behaving logically, probably legally IANAL, but for people who are simply caught in the wash it is unfair This is part of the huge systematic disruptions we are all going to have to adapt to, or die from, due to climate change Worrying times
- Nifty3929 2y ago
  Insurance companies are keen to align risks with premiums. The more accurately they do so, the less volatility they will have. And in the short run, probably more profit as well. This also helps consumers, where lower-risk folks will overpay less, and higher-risk folks will be required to lower their risk or contribute more in premiums.
- tptacek 2y ago
  You (say) have a trampoline. I do not. We share an insurer. Our insurer asked, when you applied, if you had a trampoline. Your trampoline materially increases the risk that insurance is going to have to pay to cover a lawsuit on your property. You lied, and said you didn't. I am now paying to subsidize your trampoline. Why shouldn't I want them to be running drones over our houses? Worrying times... for pirate trampolines!
  - RomanAlexander 2y ago
    Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text

kmbfjr 2y ago

Allstate refused to offer a policy quote because my house is fuzzed out on its street view photo from 2011.

switch007 2y ago

We are sprinting towards a dystopia of "computer says no". Decisions taken affecting your life and finances made by computers delivered by minimum wage powerless staff. I'm sure healthcare insurance companies are inspired by the actions of the home insurance companies. "you declared you never smoked but our drone footage shows you and a plume of smoke in the same area. The AI detected it as cigarette smoke. Your coverage is cancelled and this is our final decision. "

d--b 2y ago

A legal question here: are we allowed to shoot down a drone that snoops over our house?

ezfe 2y ago
just in case this is serious, no
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnarchismIsCool 2y ago
Full choke and magnum turkey loads. If that doesn't work, there are tutorials on YouTube for building guided anti aircraft missiles.
speedylight 2y ago
Just get a high powered laser and burn them, if its good enough for the US military its good enough for me.

superultra 2y ago

My good friend works as an insurance agent. According to him, insurers are dropping customers based on anything right now. It’s caused chaos in the agency business, particularly in certain states. My bet is aerial images are just one way of many that they’re dropping customers.

londons_explore 2y ago

> If your roof is 20 years old and one hailstorm is going to take it off, It amazes me that people in the US would even consider installing a roof that would only last 20 years. In the UK, you wouldn't consider reroofing anything that your grandparents remember being installed. Ie. Stuff doesn't get reroofed till it's 100 years old. Even then, you'll normally inspect and only replace the damaged bits. My 350 year old house still has part of its original roof and slate tiles etc.

hikingsimulator 2y ago
The weather in the US can be wild compared to what Western Europe is used to. England doesn't have to deal with the same events.
- rvba 2y ago
  Those Ukrainian concrete buildings can take a bomb and still stand...
zwayhowder 2y ago
My house is about 100 years old and still has the original concrete tile roof, with a stack of spare tiles under the house ready if needed. An extension that was done in the 1980s has had to have its roof replaced once already due to what I have to assume was poor workmanship by the builder.
EligibleDecoy 2y ago
It’s called “money.” That is the reason. Slate roofs are common in the UK, and using synthetic slate is $7-12/sqft, whereas bitumen/asphalt shingles which are common in the USA cost $0.50-$1.00/sqft. Average home in the USA is 2,200 sq ft with a roof size of 1,700 sq ft. So $1,700 vs $11,900 is quite a difference (and that was being most generous, excluding installation costs, etc) So basically, average person who owns a house has a big house, and big roofs are already expensive. Regardless of wanting to get a high quality roof that would last more than 30 years, that requires capital - more than the average owner really has access too. Sources: https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/slate-ro https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/slate-ro... https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/shingle- https://www.architecturaldigest.com/reviews/roofing/shingle-... https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/average-square-footage- https://www.rocketmortgage.com/learn/average-square-footage-... https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/roofing-stats/ https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/roofing-stats/

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

Works where archive.ph is blocked: https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=1812931943850&w=GaxRXZW2VcqJrPtvMfQusroKm9TmEDEy https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?d=1812931943850&w=GaxRXZW2Vc...

widforss 2y ago
Much appreciated

dbg31415 2y ago

I think this is fine, BUT... I think they should have to give people time to fix the problem before dropping them. A neighbor literally just got a letter in the mail, "We think your trees are over your roof. Policy cancelled immediately." (The tree was over his daughter's playhouse in the back yard, the algorithm saw shingles obstructed by a tree branch and flagged it. They don't even bother with human review.) There should be a warning period, "Hey we saw this, and if you don't fix it in 90 days we'll have to drop you." They certainly take money before doing an inspection... they're happy to have you start paying them right away as soon as you move in. Anyway there should be a time period for cut off of service. Insurance companies are free to do inspections, but there's still the stress that getting a notice like that does to someone. These days, who even reads letters from insurance companies in the mail?! I mean, I just chuck anything with a logo in the recycling. And, from what I can tell, the insurance company dropped my neighbor when they sent the letter... so he didn't even know he wasn't insured until he got the letter. Anyway... these companies aren't your friends. They're all out to screw you. USAA screwed me over bad recently, to the tune of nearly $300k... they forced me to use their contractor (or we won't cover your temp housing), said not to worry and promised me a "5 year workmanship warranty" on the work done by their contractor... but when the contractor was utter shit, they put me through their mediation, where their mediator said, "Yeah all this work done by the contractor is junk, it all has to be re-done... if they don't fix it, we'll eat their lunch!" but ultimately they didn't enforcing any of that with the contractor and let the contractor off without any consequences -- even insisted I pay the contractor. "Oh you had no right to expect the work would be professionally done..." the contractor said in court. It was all total BS. And they said, "USAA may promise you one thing, but contract we have means we aren't liable for any damages to your house, 35-foot trees we killed, foundations we cracked, garage doors we backed into, things our endless stream of disorganized day-laborers stole, etc..." USAA's mediation process was really just a play to run out the statue of limitations on the contract too, I felt. =P Live and learn... but insurance companies are heartless bastards. You can't trust them, and even the "good" ones will screw you if they can. Tell you one thing, and do another... If you have a flood, call your lawyer first, the insurance company second, and the water mitigation folks third. Get it all in writing, take more photos than you ever thought necessary, and hope you have an adjuster who isn't having a crappy day that day.

hnburnsy 2y ago

I wish insurance was more flexible with risk and deductibles, 20 year old roof, your deductible is 20000, 5 year old roof your deductible is 500, something that equalizes the risk without the need to drop customers. Heck I would self insure or set an extremely high deductible for rebuilding, but I still need coverage for any liability risk like when the mailman trips on my sidewalk.

illusive4080 2y ago
You can get basic liability coverage if that’s what you desire. But be prepared to pay out of your pocket in case of total loss. If you have a mortgage you’re almost certainly required to hold coverage.
Kalium 2y ago
That's only possible when the regulatory environment allows it. If your insurance regulators won't allow that kind of flexibility, then they have to look for other options. This is often approached through the lens of consumer protection. As a result, making thing flexible to allow insurance companies to say "Hey, you really need a new roof, but if you choose not to here's the price of that risk" is not prioritized. Approving rate increases is.

bookofjoe 2y ago

>If satellite launches go as planned, images could be updated daily by 2030, according to Neil Pearson, a consultant who works with imagery companies. >"It could get interesting from a privacy standpoint as... a property could be monitored daily at high resolution," he said. "It is a bit Orwellian."

gjs4786 2y ago

that there is any effort at all to point out why this is okay is bewildering. it's antisocial behavior. there is a reason this is on hn, folks. and there is a reason why basic car insurance is not. not today, anyway. its because it is disruptive, obnoxious behavior that juts out and has jagged edges, and people dont stand for that. this isn't about my roof, or yours. people are quick to point out, "fwiw, they could cancel your insurance right now! they arent required to even give it to you, so yeah, they can do that" or, "they're perfectly within the law to do it, next". I paraphrase here, but regardless. I confidently say to that: Hah! then the law got it wrong, then. and the law needs to change. that is specifically the problem. they simply have too much power. and now they're rubbing our faces on it while a bunch of you rush to find why that's [legally] alright, while you only consider why it makes sense to you, not why it doesn't make sense to others. a critical oversight. they could have gone about this 100 different ways. fleet drones. really? I predict that they are preparing substantial layoffs; thats the only thing that even begins to explain this situation. out with the old, in with the drones

azlev 2y ago

Can someone explain to my house insurance is so important? I live outside USA and I never bought an insurance, a common situation in my country.

sarchertech 2y ago
It’s required if you have a mortgage. Even if you don’t have a mortgage, your home is probably worth several times your annual salary. Most people can’t afford that loss if it burns down, gets hit by a tornado etc…
- azlev 2y ago
  Thank you.
- danans 2y ago
  Also, consider that for a great many Americans, their house is the only significant asset they have. A huge number of Americans have no retirement savings at all [1]. For some of these people who do own a house, selling it at retirement is the only way they can avoid poverty (or at least maintain their quality of life), especially with the possibility of a future government significantly cutting Social Security benefits. Even those with retirement savings often treat their houses as an asset to be leveraged or sold at retirement to help fund the latter stages of their lives [2]. These are all good reasons to carry property insurance even if you don't have a mortgage on the property that requires it. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-baby-boomers-with-no-retirement-savings/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-baby-boomers-with-no... 2. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/11/how-americans-are-using-their-homes-to-fund-retirement https://www.axios.com/2023/03/11/how-americans-are-using-the...
  - datascienced 2y ago
    Probably why it is smart to buy a property where most of the value is the land. If you can!
    - 2y ago

fostware 2y ago

It's been happening for years. Anything to limit the number of onsite visits needed because that takes a lot more time. I know insurance brokers who have revisited a clients renewal, because Google Maps and/or the council's GIS photography shows activity or buildings counter to the client declarations. Is it a final decision? No. It's used to prompt the client to review their coverage and amend their submitted documents. Sometimes, those amendments mean the brokers are no longer able to get coverage, and the clients go somewhere else.

imoverclocked 2y ago

This tech implementation seems like the worst HOA on steroids. Anyone have a neighbor that complains about one too many daffodils in the mandatory daffodil plot? Well, now they have a new tool for compliance.

Sparkyte 2y ago

The problem with aerial photos is that not always do these photos provide enough detail they can provide deceptive data. It is better if insurance companies send field workers to check the premises.

krunck 2y ago

My insurance company asked me for photos of our roof to prove it was metal and not asphalt. From a distance it looks like asphalt because it is metal with a stone grit coating just like asphalt. Could a photo from a drone see this?. Maybe. I also live under the final approach flight path of the local airport so maybe they couldn't verify using their drone.