5 ms·

Why is the title here mention AI if the post itself has absolutely no mention of it? This is basically blatant advertisement for lemonade. Geico, Metlife, and o

Why is the title here mention AI if the post itself has absolutely no mention of it? This is basically blatant advertisement for lemonade. Geico, Metlife, and others offer very competitive rates for renters insurance (<$80/year) in major metro areas and have done so for several years

fernly 10y ago
It's actually there in the penultimate paragraph: "So how can Lemonade be 80% cheaper? You guessed it: by building an insurance company, from the ground up, powered by A.I. and behavioral economics."
majormajor 10y ago
I have similar questions after seeing the example monthly rates they give for the competition. I've never in my life paid that much for renter's insurance, it's always been around ~100/year. Progressive and Geico (reselling Travelers), mainly. So I just kinda assume it doesn't apply to me, or are best-case edge scenarios where they judge risk of certain customers dramatically differently. But it certainly can't be "legacy insurers have enormous overheads, making a $60 product ($5/month) impossible" as a unique advantage, since I pay $75 a year today. (And it does cover property damage liability, not simply personal property, something they seem to indicate their own does not: "Renters insurance covers personal property, rather than real-estate." Maybe they mean renters policies usually carry less property coverage, like $100K instead of full value of the property, I don't know, but it's just another weird thing in a weird-reading sales pitch that doesn't seem to apply to the world I've been living in.)
- cosmie 10y ago
  Is your policy a standalone policy or bundled with another policy, where the marginal overhead of the renters policy is lower? Also, the $100k liability coverage you're referring to is more likely than not personal liability coverage, not property damage liability. The intent of that is to cover any claims resulting from e.g. one of your guests getting hurt on the property. Not to cover structural claims themselves. Most of the rentals I've lived in require that coverage, as it makes their premiums cheaper since their liability coverage acts as an umbrella policy that only triggers after that $100k is exhausted from your policy. But any structural claims that don't include personal property or liability issues would still go straight to their policy, not yours.
- phonon 10y ago
  You are not covered for property damage with a renter's insurance policy. The $100,000 coverage is for liability (e.g. a guest slips and falls and she's you.) You are also covered by a smaller amount (e.g. $10,000) for your personal property.
  - phonon 10y ago
    "and she's you" -> and she sues you
Spooky23 10y ago
I was a sucker who converted. In my case, as a homeowner, they were nearly 20% more expensive than my current carrier homeowners and umbrella liability. So either their underwriting model is crap, their data sucks (I literaly live next door to a paid firehouse and got 3* for fire protection). They also don't ask you detailed questions unless you explicitly do so -- in my case that was nearly a $100 difference. Last time I bought renters insurance, in 2006, it was something like $35. Their interview approach to data gathering is slick though!
Hydraulix989 10y ago
They just changed their title to "Saving 80% in 90 Seconds?" after getting a bunch of upvotes from the previous AI-powered insurance title. Talk about manipulative and disingenuous behavior. I flagged the post.

fernly 10y ago

It's actually there in the penultimate paragraph: "So how can Lemonade be 80% cheaper? You guessed it: by building an insurance company, from the ground up, powered by A.I. and behavioral economics."

majormajor 10y ago

I have similar questions after seeing the example monthly rates they give for the competition. I've never in my life paid that much for renter's insurance, it's always been around ~100/year. Progressive and Geico (reselling Travelers), mainly. So I just kinda assume it doesn't apply to me, or are best-case edge scenarios where they judge risk of certain customers dramatically differently. But it certainly can't be "legacy insurers have enormous overheads, making a $60 product ($5/month) impossible" as a unique advantage, since I pay $75 a year today. (And it does cover property damage liability, not simply personal property, something they seem to indicate their own does not: "Renters insurance covers personal property, rather than real-estate." Maybe they mean renters policies usually carry less property coverage, like $100K instead of full value of the property, I don't know, but it's just another weird thing in a weird-reading sales pitch that doesn't seem to apply to the world I've been living in.)

cosmie 10y ago
Is your policy a standalone policy or bundled with another policy, where the marginal overhead of the renters policy is lower? Also, the $100k liability coverage you're referring to is more likely than not personal liability coverage, not property damage liability. The intent of that is to cover any claims resulting from e.g. one of your guests getting hurt on the property. Not to cover structural claims themselves. Most of the rentals I've lived in require that coverage, as it makes their premiums cheaper since their liability coverage acts as an umbrella policy that only triggers after that $100k is exhausted from your policy. But any structural claims that don't include personal property or liability issues would still go straight to their policy, not yours.
phonon 10y ago
You are not covered for property damage with a renter's insurance policy. The $100,000 coverage is for liability (e.g. a guest slips and falls and she's you.) You are also covered by a smaller amount (e.g. $10,000) for your personal property.
- phonon 10y ago
  "and she's you" -> and she sues you

Spooky23 10y ago

I was a sucker who converted. In my case, as a homeowner, they were nearly 20% more expensive than my current carrier homeowners and umbrella liability. So either their underwriting model is crap, their data sucks (I literaly live next door to a paid firehouse and got 3* for fire protection). They also don't ask you detailed questions unless you explicitly do so -- in my case that was nearly a $100 difference. Last time I bought renters insurance, in 2006, it was something like $35. Their interview approach to data gathering is slick though!

Hydraulix989 10y ago

They just changed their title to "Saving 80% in 90 Seconds?" after getting a bunch of upvotes from the previous AI-powered insurance title. Talk about manipulative and disingenuous behavior. I flagged the post.