9 ms·

I think the issue is that in some cases the information is inaccurate and there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is can

by imgabe 3y ago

I think the issue is that in some cases the information is inaccurate and there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information. To the extent that the information is accurate, I agree. If you make an agreement with a company and buy insurance based on your statement that you don't have a pool, but then you do have a pool, I don't see any reason why we should be upset that you didn't get away with lying to the insurance company.

londons_explore 3y ago
They can also use the info to decide if they allow a renewal. They can decide not to renew for any reason - including that they just decided not to do house insurance at all anymore.
tptacek 3y ago
They can generally decline coverage for any reason, for what it's worth; they could cancel without aerial footage just on the hunch that you didn't replace your roof, or they could mass-mail their customers demanding proof of roof replacements. (The article and other things I'm reading suggest that cancellations are because footage finds trampolines and pools --- in which case I don't even understand how anybody can have sympathy. It's fine to have insurance risks on your property! But disclose them!)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  It's interesting that insurers will spend money to discover this rather than rely on the pro forma clause that claims proceeding from an undisclosed risk are invalid. I'm guessing they calculate that a jury may not respect that part of the contract when confronted in court by grieving parents of an accident victim.
  - ssl-3 3y ago
    How is an unversed lay homeowner who is inexpert in the insurance industry (or perhaps even any industry) supposed to know what risks an insurer thinks are important? Their job, I think, is to accept the quote, pay the premiums, and to keep living life.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      On 1-3 occasions over the course of an insured's entire life, they'll be confronted with the paperwork for the insurance contract for the most expensive asset they'll ever buy. They should read it.
      - Retric 3y ago
        And then remember all the relevant details for the next 30 years… It’s frankly unrealistic to expect most people to remember their home insurance asking about trampolines 15+ years ago.
        tptacek 3y ago
        What you're really saying is that it's unrealistic for buyers to know that trampolines are dangerous.
        Retric 3y ago
        Bathtubs are dangerous, being dangerous isn’t the only criteria here.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Ok, well, we've reached an argument that is dispositive for people who think trampolines are no more dangerous than bathtubs.
        thfuran 3y ago
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Also trees can have a lot of impact on your insurance rate, like if you have a neighbor's trees intruding into your property, remember that it is the property's owner responsibility and not the owner of the tree, so they could ding you for that. Or if they notice you are too close to a tree line in an area known for wild fires, etc...
- firesteelrain 3y ago
  Some insurance companies will allow trampolines -- at a cost. We had to get rid of ours because the cost and liability just wasnt worth it.
  - nothercastle 3y ago
    Most people don’t declare then which is really stupid imo.
    - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
      Perhaps they figure the risk is worth it compared to the increased premiums.
  - mvc 3y ago
    So in the richest country in the world parents can't let their kids play on trampolines because a neighbours kid having an accident on one would bankrupt their insurance company. Meanwhile, toddlers do active shooter drills like they are fire alarm drills. Totally logical country you got there with a perfectly reasonable approach to risk.
    - firesteelrain 3y ago
      Ah, yes, the great trampoline versus active shooter drill debate—a classic comparison in risk management. It's fascinating how we can meticulously calculate the liability of a backyard bounce while simultaneously normalizing lockdown drills for kindergarteners. It's like comparing apples to, well, something far less innocent than apples. But hey, who's to say which is more logical in the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?
    - someguydave 3y ago
      Your child is much more likely to be injured on a trampoline than in a school shooting
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Hmm, when I was a kid while at my friends house I had a small statue fall on my head from a bookshelf. I still have the mark from it. My parents were informed, and with two of them nurses they decided to just watch me for concussion. My parents didn’t sue them, just chalked it up to accident. A friend of mine broke their arm on another friends giant trampoline. Again, no lawsuit. These days parents will sue their child’s best friends parents for something like that. So perhaps there’s something different with modern Americans that has made them more likely to piss on their neighbors? Unfortunately this is the normal ebb and flow of populations. And the stage the US is at we just have to wait for severe economic disaster to remind people what trauma is.
pants2 3y ago
Last time I was shopping for home insurance, an agent told me I was too close to a canyon, which I thought was strange because there are no canyons near me. They sent me a screenshot of the fire danger map where clearly it had the wrong location / coordinates for my address (they thought I was about a mile from where I really live). I pointed them to my address on Google Maps which has my correct location, but they said their system isn't wrong and the address coordinate mapping can't be changed anyway. Go away. Then another insurance company told me the same thing. I thought maybe I was going to be uninsurable completely based off of a computer error. Luckily, Lemonade has smarter systems and got my location right, so I was able to get insured with them. But I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade.
- JBiserkov 3y ago
  > I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade. Me too. So. many. lemons :-)
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  I wonder if there’s a small-claims court claim here. It’s sort of annoying to have to jump through this hoop, but this is the sort of situation where you have to make it the right person’s problem to get what you want.
  - MajimasEyepatch 3y ago
    Your best bet would probably be to go to your state Department of Insurance. They're the ones who regulate insurance in each state, including issuing licenses and appointments, and agencies and carriers tend to take DOI complaints seriously. It wouldn't necessarily get resolved fast, but they would have the authority to do something about it, if there are any grounds for taking action. (The federal government, for mostly historical reasons, does not generally regulate insurance except for health insurance, and that only started with Obamacare. So each state has its own DOI, and agents and carriers have to get licensed in each state. It's a dumb, byzantine system going back to Paul v. Virginia in 1869, when the Supreme Court ruled that issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. I don't think that reasoning applies today, but Congress has specifically exempted insurance from things like anti-trust legislation since then. Sweeping insurance under federal regulation would, in theory, cause a giant mess since there's so much law and process built around the current state-by-state system. IMO it would be worth it because the current system is completely ridiculous, but so it goes.)
paulcole 3y ago
> there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information. This is part of the risk one takes buying property. It’s more than offset by the benefits of buying property. Or else everyone wouldn’t be telling me what an idiot I am for renting.
- hattmall 3y ago
  No, it's definitely not. No one accounts for the risk of being rejected due to inaccurate information. It doesn't even make sense to do so because the nature of the probability isn't definable.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    No, it definitely is. If nobody accounts for it, it means it’s not a risk worth accounting for. But it’s still a risk.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Fellow renter here, what avenues do you have if your renters insurance is cancelled? You don’t have the risk of the main building, but what if your unit suddenly becomes a fire hazard area and you’re dropped? You’re (and I) are an idiot for renting because after you’re done renting you have no equity. Now compare the rental and mortgage similarly sized units and you’ll realize for about 20% more money you’re suddenly not igniting it on fire every month.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        > You’re (and I) are an idiot for renting because after you’re done renting you have no equity Not a good argument. This only holds true if your rent equals what your mortgage would be. I personally don’t care about similarly sized units — why would I compare those? I specifically choose to rent small and inexpensive apartments and put the savings (compared to a mortgage) into other investments. So I do have quite a lot to show for myself after 20 years of renting. I’ve been paying under $1,200 in rent for 10+ years in a neighborhood where houses are now pushing $800,000. > Fellow renter here, what avenues do you have if your renters insurance is cancelled The same as the homeowner does, shop for other options. Fortunately w/ renting it seems like insurance companies (thus far) don’t care that much and use it as an incentive. My partner’s car insurance provider reduced her total bill when she added rental insurance.
throwaway2037 3y ago
> if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer.
- mooreds 3y ago
  Agreed. I've definitely reached out to insurance regulators in the past and things got fixed. (In the USA.)
- autoexec 3y ago
  > I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer. Except that according to the article this "hypothetical bullshit scenario" is already happening and there are even several examples of it happening including one where a person was rejected for the condition of their roof when the roof was brand new, and another where a person was rejected because of trees that were nothing more than shadows. Since you know that it's so easy to "tell regulators" and get things fixed quickly you should reach out to Douglas Heller, the director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America, because he's under the impression that “The technology is way ahead of any consumer protections” and consumer groups feel that inspections via aerial images are "worrisome because of the limited rights customers have to challenge the images" You can find Mr. Heller here (https://consumerfed.org/expert/douglas-heller/ https://consumerfed.org/expert/douglas-heller/). I'm sure Douglas would love to learn about how none of this is a problem because "insurance is insanely strictly regulated" and your expertise would mean that he can better help the people currently struggling with this issue and potentially even save others from having to deal with it in the future.
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
dzhiurgis 3y ago
There was a case recently in NZ where home owner tried to defraud an insurance company. Well suddenly none of the insurance companies would work with him. Insurance is a requirement for mortgage so this person is effectively going to loose his house. False positive with similar circumstances would be a nightmare.
- lostemptations5 3y ago
  I'm curious-- have a link?
  - dzhiurgis 3y ago
    So this wasn't even fraud on his home insurance, but on car... https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508570/auckland-anniversary-floods-man-loses-insurance-coverage-could-lose-home-over-false-claim https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508570/auckland-annivers...
- lostlogin 3y ago
  Has anyone in NZ ever had a bank check if they are insured after purchase? They asked on signing the loan. But after that they never check.

by imgabe 3y ago

londons_explore 3y ago

They can also use the info to decide if they allow a renewal. They can decide not to renew for any reason - including that they just decided not to do house insurance at all anymore.

tptacek 3y ago

They can generally decline coverage for any reason, for what it's worth; they could cancel without aerial footage just on the hunch that you didn't replace your roof, or they could mass-mail their customers demanding proof of roof replacements. (The article and other things I'm reading suggest that cancellations are because footage finds trampolines and pools --- in which case I don't even understand how anybody can have sympathy. It's fine to have insurance risks on your property! But disclose them!)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
everybodyknows 3y ago
It's interesting that insurers will spend money to discover this rather than rely on the pro forma clause that claims proceeding from an undisclosed risk are invalid. I'm guessing they calculate that a jury may not respect that part of the contract when confronted in court by grieving parents of an accident victim.
- ssl-3 3y ago
  How is an unversed lay homeowner who is inexpert in the insurance industry (or perhaps even any industry) supposed to know what risks an insurer thinks are important? Their job, I think, is to accept the quote, pay the premiums, and to keep living life.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    On 1-3 occasions over the course of an insured's entire life, they'll be confronted with the paperwork for the insurance contract for the most expensive asset they'll ever buy. They should read it.
    - Retric 3y ago
      And then remember all the relevant details for the next 30 years… It’s frankly unrealistic to expect most people to remember their home insurance asking about trampolines 15+ years ago.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        What you're really saying is that it's unrealistic for buyers to know that trampolines are dangerous.
        Retric 3y ago
        Bathtubs are dangerous, being dangerous isn’t the only criteria here.
        tptacek 3y ago
        Ok, well, we've reached an argument that is dispositive for people who think trampolines are no more dangerous than bathtubs.
        thfuran 3y ago
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Also trees can have a lot of impact on your insurance rate, like if you have a neighbor's trees intruding into your property, remember that it is the property's owner responsibility and not the owner of the tree, so they could ding you for that. Or if they notice you are too close to a tree line in an area known for wild fires, etc...
firesteelrain 3y ago
Some insurance companies will allow trampolines -- at a cost. We had to get rid of ours because the cost and liability just wasnt worth it.
- nothercastle 3y ago
  Most people don’t declare then which is really stupid imo.
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    Perhaps they figure the risk is worth it compared to the increased premiums.
- mvc 3y ago
  So in the richest country in the world parents can't let their kids play on trampolines because a neighbours kid having an accident on one would bankrupt their insurance company. Meanwhile, toddlers do active shooter drills like they are fire alarm drills. Totally logical country you got there with a perfectly reasonable approach to risk.
  - firesteelrain 3y ago
    Ah, yes, the great trampoline versus active shooter drill debate—a classic comparison in risk management. It's fascinating how we can meticulously calculate the liability of a backyard bounce while simultaneously normalizing lockdown drills for kindergarteners. It's like comparing apples to, well, something far less innocent than apples. But hey, who's to say which is more logical in the land of the free and the home of the brave, right?
  - someguydave 3y ago
    Your child is much more likely to be injured on a trampoline than in a school shooting
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Hmm, when I was a kid while at my friends house I had a small statue fall on my head from a bookshelf. I still have the mark from it. My parents were informed, and with two of them nurses they decided to just watch me for concussion. My parents didn’t sue them, just chalked it up to accident. A friend of mine broke their arm on another friends giant trampoline. Again, no lawsuit. These days parents will sue their child’s best friends parents for something like that. So perhaps there’s something different with modern Americans that has made them more likely to piss on their neighbors? Unfortunately this is the normal ebb and flow of populations. And the stage the US is at we just have to wait for severe economic disaster to remind people what trauma is.

pants2 3y ago

Last time I was shopping for home insurance, an agent told me I was too close to a canyon, which I thought was strange because there are no canyons near me. They sent me a screenshot of the fire danger map where clearly it had the wrong location / coordinates for my address (they thought I was about a mile from where I really live). I pointed them to my address on Google Maps which has my correct location, but they said their system isn't wrong and the address coordinate mapping can't be changed anyway. Go away. Then another insurance company told me the same thing. I thought maybe I was going to be uninsurable completely based off of a computer error. Luckily, Lemonade has smarter systems and got my location right, so I was able to get insured with them. But I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade.

JBiserkov 3y ago
> I'm not sure what I would do without lemonade. Me too. So. many. lemons :-)
fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
I wonder if there’s a small-claims court claim here. It’s sort of annoying to have to jump through this hoop, but this is the sort of situation where you have to make it the right person’s problem to get what you want.
- MajimasEyepatch 3y ago
  Your best bet would probably be to go to your state Department of Insurance. They're the ones who regulate insurance in each state, including issuing licenses and appointments, and agencies and carriers tend to take DOI complaints seriously. It wouldn't necessarily get resolved fast, but they would have the authority to do something about it, if there are any grounds for taking action. (The federal government, for mostly historical reasons, does not generally regulate insurance except for health insurance, and that only started with Obamacare. So each state has its own DOI, and agents and carriers have to get licensed in each state. It's a dumb, byzantine system going back to Paul v. Virginia in 1869, when the Supreme Court ruled that issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce. I don't think that reasoning applies today, but Congress has specifically exempted insurance from things like anti-trust legislation since then. Sweeping insurance under federal regulation would, in theory, cause a giant mess since there's so much law and process built around the current state-by-state system. IMO it would be worth it because the current system is completely ridiculous, but so it goes.)

paulcole 3y ago

> there are sometimes limited avenues for a customer to object if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information. This is part of the risk one takes buying property. It’s more than offset by the benefits of buying property. Or else everyone wouldn’t be telling me what an idiot I am for renting.

hattmall 3y ago
No, it's definitely not. No one accounts for the risk of being rejected due to inaccurate information. It doesn't even make sense to do so because the nature of the probability isn't definable.
- paulcole 3y ago
  No, it definitely is. If nobody accounts for it, it means it’s not a risk worth accounting for. But it’s still a risk.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Fellow renter here, what avenues do you have if your renters insurance is cancelled? You don’t have the risk of the main building, but what if your unit suddenly becomes a fire hazard area and you’re dropped? You’re (and I) are an idiot for renting because after you’re done renting you have no equity. Now compare the rental and mortgage similarly sized units and you’ll realize for about 20% more money you’re suddenly not igniting it on fire every month.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      > You’re (and I) are an idiot for renting because after you’re done renting you have no equity Not a good argument. This only holds true if your rent equals what your mortgage would be. I personally don’t care about similarly sized units — why would I compare those? I specifically choose to rent small and inexpensive apartments and put the savings (compared to a mortgage) into other investments. So I do have quite a lot to show for myself after 20 years of renting. I’ve been paying under $1,200 in rent for 10+ years in a neighborhood where houses are now pushing $800,000. > Fellow renter here, what avenues do you have if your renters insurance is cancelled The same as the homeowner does, shop for other options. Fortunately w/ renting it seems like insurance companies (thus far) don’t care that much and use it as an incentive. My partner’s car insurance provider reduced her total bill when she added rental insurance.

throwaway2037 3y ago

> if their insurance is cancelled based on inaccurate information I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer.

mooreds 3y ago
Agreed. I've definitely reached out to insurance regulators in the past and things got fixed. (In the USA.)
autoexec 3y ago
> I see this type of comment on HN too often. Some hypothetical bullshit scenario followed by a BIG if. Armchair quarterback type of comment. In all highly advanced countries (G7 and similar), insurance is insanely strictly regulated. If they cancel your policy for a b/s reason, and your protests are ignored, then tell the regulators. They will fix it quickly and slap a huge fine on the insurer. Except that according to the article this "hypothetical bullshit scenario" is already happening and there are even several examples of it happening including one where a person was rejected for the condition of their roof when the roof was brand new, and another where a person was rejected because of trees that were nothing more than shadows. Since you know that it's so easy to "tell regulators" and get things fixed quickly you should reach out to Douglas Heller, the director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America, because he's under the impression that “The technology is way ahead of any consumer protections” and consumer groups feel that inspections via aerial images are "worrisome because of the limited rights customers have to challenge the images" You can find Mr. Heller here (https://consumerfed.org/expert/douglas-heller/ https://consumerfed.org/expert/douglas-heller/). I'm sure Douglas would love to learn about how none of this is a problem because "insurance is insanely strictly regulated" and your expertise would mean that he can better help the people currently struggling with this issue and potentially even save others from having to deal with it in the future.
Arn_Thor 3y ago

dzhiurgis 3y ago

There was a case recently in NZ where home owner tried to defraud an insurance company. Well suddenly none of the insurance companies would work with him. Insurance is a requirement for mortgage so this person is effectively going to loose his house. False positive with similar circumstances would be a nightmare.

lostemptations5 3y ago
I'm curious-- have a link?
- dzhiurgis 3y ago
  So this wasn't even fraud on his home insurance, but on car... https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508570/auckland-anniversary-floods-man-loses-insurance-coverage-could-lose-home-over-false-claim https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508570/auckland-annivers...
lostlogin 3y ago
Has anyone in NZ ever had a bank check if they are insured after purchase? They asked on signing the loan. But after that they never check.