4 ms·

That's probably why some of the insurance policies require things like curfews and private security.

• rdl 8y ago
  The war zone policies often mandated inherently unsafe things (movement only in high-profile armored vehicles, with light security, concentration of protected persons in specific places) when those things were actually by that time less safe than alternatives (low profile vehicles, dispersion).
  • daveFNbuck 8y ago
    Presumably these companies would be at a competitive disadvantage to insurance companies that are better at mitigating risk. How are they able to stay in business while requiring unsafe behavior?
    • AstralStorm 8y ago
      Unsafe practice is probably cheaper and clients do not know any better - to them show of security is better than actual security. That said, some unsafe practices as mentioned become the only choice - when you're high profile enough, obscurity will not work.
      • daveFNbuck 8y ago
        The insurance company is paying for the outcomes, not the security. The security is a condition of their coverage. They don't benefit from the cost savings, but they are hurt by the lack of safety.
      • rdl 8y ago
        Yes, the way the insurers do things was essentially due to "principal-agent" issues, difficulties enforcing standards, and some (related) regulatory issues. Still, it led to less safety.