3 ms·

Two big issues worth discussing here IMO: 1) Privacy rights in the age of aerial photography 2) Consumer rights in the age of subscription-dependence Property

Two big issues worth discussing here IMO: 1) Privacy rights in the age of aerial photography 2) Consumer rights in the age of subscription-dependence Property insurance historically has some of the best consumer protections, its one of the oldest "private subscriptions" that fills a critical need. But new technology can easily disrupt a balance of power set decades ago.

RosanaAnaDana 3y ago
This is nothing new for insurance. Aerial imagery has been in use for decades to address different perils. At least this homeowner had someone take a look before they were denied coverage. Most insurance companies will just write off whole zipcodes as 'lost' due to wildfire risk rather than get into this granular a level of detail. The issue California faces isn't a technical one. Its a social/ behavior issue. Californians will need to change their behavior with regards to how they manage their personal property or the risk will continue to be too high for insurance companies to bear. These properties aren't struggling to get insurance because suddenly we have aerial imagery; they are struggling because the data regarding wildfire risk has become impeccably clear. Individual actions can make an impact to their individual and community wildfire risk, but fundamentally wildfire risk is a network phenomena. It has to happen at scale. If a homeowner isn't willing to deal with debris piles on their property they are putting themselves and their community at risk. Should they get insurance?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You're putting the blame on the homeowner for a problem they weren't aware was a problem. In this specific case I don't see that the guy's yard, which is actually quite tidy, credibly increases fire risk. His insurance was canceled without him receiving any option for appeal or remediation. That's BS. You'd be made if something similar happened to your business, and it's not a good basis on which to shill for your clients.
  - RosanaAnaDana 3y ago
    My clients are home owners who are looking to do what it takes to avoid a non-renewal and mitigate/ reduce their personal wildfire risk. We give them the reports and data necessary to challenge a non-renewal. He can hop on our website right now and schedule an inspection. We service the entire bay area. But I can tell you this right now, with what I saw in the video he won't pass. He's storing combustibles too close to the structure. It puts him at significant risk. At my company we see customer service as the top priority and try to partner with homeowners to both understand their risk and take action. This is why we focus our reporting so much on education around the issue and communication about what matters for risk. Ultimately however, the onus is on the homeowner to take action. It's no one's responsibility but theirs to understand and mitigate their risk. I think many home owners are naive as to how high their risk really is. Look at the reaction to Oregon's recent risk maps. The maps were accurate, and the public panicked. Now they are wordsmithing the science to down play the risk. Rearranging the deck chairs does nothing about the underlying hazard. Link to the Oregon story: https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-lawmakers-insurance-commissioner-respond-to-wildfire-map-concerns# https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-lawmakers-insurance-commi...
  - apple4ever 3y ago
    Yes that's exactly the problem here. Not only was it canceled with out remedy, he was only given a cryptic reason.
Ferret7446 3y ago
Based on some of the other comments, the consumer protection in CA is so good that insurance providers are noping out (All State, State Farm, etc), and as always the average citizen gets shafted by poorly thought out policies.

RosanaAnaDana 3y ago

This is nothing new for insurance. Aerial imagery has been in use for decades to address different perils. At least this homeowner had someone take a look before they were denied coverage. Most insurance companies will just write off whole zipcodes as 'lost' due to wildfire risk rather than get into this granular a level of detail. The issue California faces isn't a technical one. Its a social/ behavior issue. Californians will need to change their behavior with regards to how they manage their personal property or the risk will continue to be too high for insurance companies to bear. These properties aren't struggling to get insurance because suddenly we have aerial imagery; they are struggling because the data regarding wildfire risk has become impeccably clear. Individual actions can make an impact to their individual and community wildfire risk, but fundamentally wildfire risk is a network phenomena. It has to happen at scale. If a homeowner isn't willing to deal with debris piles on their property they are putting themselves and their community at risk. Should they get insurance?

anigbrowl 3y ago
You're putting the blame on the homeowner for a problem they weren't aware was a problem. In this specific case I don't see that the guy's yard, which is actually quite tidy, credibly increases fire risk. His insurance was canceled without him receiving any option for appeal or remediation. That's BS. You'd be made if something similar happened to your business, and it's not a good basis on which to shill for your clients.
- RosanaAnaDana 3y ago
  My clients are home owners who are looking to do what it takes to avoid a non-renewal and mitigate/ reduce their personal wildfire risk. We give them the reports and data necessary to challenge a non-renewal. He can hop on our website right now and schedule an inspection. We service the entire bay area. But I can tell you this right now, with what I saw in the video he won't pass. He's storing combustibles too close to the structure. It puts him at significant risk. At my company we see customer service as the top priority and try to partner with homeowners to both understand their risk and take action. This is why we focus our reporting so much on education around the issue and communication about what matters for risk. Ultimately however, the onus is on the homeowner to take action. It's no one's responsibility but theirs to understand and mitigate their risk. I think many home owners are naive as to how high their risk really is. Look at the reaction to Oregon's recent risk maps. The maps were accurate, and the public panicked. Now they are wordsmithing the science to down play the risk. Rearranging the deck chairs does nothing about the underlying hazard. Link to the Oregon story: https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-lawmakers-insurance-commissioner-respond-to-wildfire-map-concerns# https://katu.com/news/local/oregon-lawmakers-insurance-commi...
- apple4ever 3y ago
  Yes that's exactly the problem here. Not only was it canceled with out remedy, he was only given a cryptic reason.

Ferret7446 3y ago

Based on some of the other comments, the consumer protection in CA is so good that insurance providers are noping out (All State, State Farm, etc), and as always the average citizen gets shafted by poorly thought out policies.