7 ms·

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 boilerp

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

tptacek 2y ago
It depends on the policy, but either way, this is the kind of risk we're talking about managing with culls: trampolines, and bad roofs. I pay to keep my house up. You (say) don't. Why should I be OK with subsidizing your resulting claims with higher rates? I think there's a sort of weird subtext in the "risk pooling" discussions on this thread that "risk pooling" is a way for people who don't replace their old roofs to get protection from the people who do. But that's not at all the concept! You refusing you repair your roof isn't an act of god; it's just recklessness.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  You seem to be forgetting that this avoidance can work at two times: 1. pre-emptively dropping or refusing coverage 2. claim inspectors concluding the company has no liability for a particular incident. It doesn't all need to be #2 (and probably should not be), but it also doesn't all need to be #1 either.
  - hattmall 2y ago
    #2 is less successful and incurs more costs. Trampolines are a good one because let's say you lie about a trampoline. Ok, great, we don't have to cover any trampoline related injuries. What are the chances that you would then lie and say that a broken arm occured on the steps instead and simply fail to mention the trampoline like you already did.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      You, the rogue trampoline owner, aren't really the party that the insurer is worried about. Your kid's best friend's parents are. (And it's not a broken arm they're really freaked out about --- don't make a homeowners claim over a broken arm, probably; it'll cost you more in the medium term --- it's death or paralysis, both of which will put millions of dollars on the line).
NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won. I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepresentations unrelated to your claim, but certainly there's no moral argument that it shouldn't work that way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 2y ago
  It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insurer of this change in circumstances immediately, but you’ve forgotten that. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction, but while the insurer can try to void the whole contract, courts don’t always let them do it, especially if the policyholder convinces the court it was an innocent mistake or oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.
pxeboot 2y ago
> Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? This doesn't stop expensive lawsuits, even if they ultimately don't pay the claim.
- potatolicious 2y ago
  Also doesn't stop the lawsuit between the policy holder and the insurance company, which also costs money. Whereas your ability to sue for a non-existent policy (or one where that was unambiguously canceled) is... much less.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Trampoline is a bad example. Pool is not. That could threaten your house’s structure, or cause damage to your neighbour’s in a storm. The article gave an example of an overhanging tree—it makes sense for the population to segregate into those who will manage that risk and those who won’t, with the latter being charged a higher premium.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Pools are insurance issues because people die in them, and their nexts of kin sue the homeowner.
  - BeFlatXIII 2y ago
    We ought to change the law to stiff the money-seeking families of victims. So long as the pool was fenced or fully above ground (required a ladder to access)
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  Pools are 'attractive nuisances'
firesteelrain 2y ago
It increases the chance of a claim against the homeowner insurance if a neighbor's kid gets injured on your property. Even if it ultimately will be on you, the insurance company will likely get sued and may settle which increases costs. They'd rather go the cheaper, drone surveillance route to find offenders early and warn them or else.
WalterBright 2y ago
It would be hard for the insurance company to prove that the head injury was from the trampoline rather than tripping on the porch.

tptacek 2y ago

It depends on the policy, but either way, this is the kind of risk we're talking about managing with culls: trampolines, and bad roofs. I pay to keep my house up. You (say) don't. Why should I be OK with subsidizing your resulting claims with higher rates? I think there's a sort of weird subtext in the "risk pooling" discussions on this thread that "risk pooling" is a way for people who don't replace their old roofs to get protection from the people who do. But that's not at all the concept! You refusing you repair your roof isn't an act of god; it's just recklessness.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
You seem to be forgetting that this avoidance can work at two times: 1. pre-emptively dropping or refusing coverage 2. claim inspectors concluding the company has no liability for a particular incident. It doesn't all need to be #2 (and probably should not be), but it also doesn't all need to be #1 either.
- hattmall 2y ago
  #2 is less successful and incurs more costs. Trampolines are a good one because let's say you lie about a trampoline. Ok, great, we don't have to cover any trampoline related injuries. What are the chances that you would then lie and say that a broken arm occured on the steps instead and simply fail to mention the trampoline like you already did.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    You, the rogue trampoline owner, aren't really the party that the insurer is worried about. Your kid's best friend's parents are. (And it's not a broken arm they're really freaked out about --- don't make a homeowners claim over a broken arm, probably; it'll cost you more in the medium term --- it's death or paralysis, both of which will put millions of dollars on the line).

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.

tptacek 2y ago
I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won. I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepresentations unrelated to your claim, but certainly there's no moral argument that it shouldn't work that way.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
skissane 2y ago
It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insurer of this change in circumstances immediately, but you’ve forgotten that. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction, but while the insurer can try to void the whole contract, courts don’t always let them do it, especially if the policyholder convinces the court it was an innocent mistake or oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
- tptacek 2y ago
  This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.

pxeboot 2y ago

> Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? This doesn't stop expensive lawsuits, even if they ultimately don't pay the claim.

potatolicious 2y ago
Also doesn't stop the lawsuit between the policy holder and the insurance company, which also costs money. Whereas your ability to sue for a non-existent policy (or one where that was unambiguously canceled) is... much less.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Trampoline is a bad example. Pool is not. That could threaten your house’s structure, or cause damage to your neighbour’s in a storm. The article gave an example of an overhanging tree—it makes sense for the population to segregate into those who will manage that risk and those who won’t, with the latter being charged a higher premium.

tptacek 2y ago
Pools are insurance issues because people die in them, and their nexts of kin sue the homeowner.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  We ought to change the law to stiff the money-seeking families of victims. So long as the pool was fenced or fully above ground (required a ladder to access)
firesteelrain 2y ago
Pools are 'attractive nuisances'

firesteelrain 2y ago

It increases the chance of a claim against the homeowner insurance if a neighbor's kid gets injured on your property. Even if it ultimately will be on you, the insurance company will likely get sued and may settle which increases costs. They'd rather go the cheaper, drone surveillance route to find offenders early and warn them or else.

WalterBright 2y ago

It would be hard for the insurance company to prove that the head injury was from the trampoline rather than tripping on the porch.