4 ms·
His point is that insurance cost for an 85k car with a potential design flaw is (1) likely to go up; and (2) likely to be perceived as a red flag by potential b
by 001sky 13y ago
His point is that insurance cost for an 85k car with a potential design flaw is (1) likely to go up; and (2) likely to be perceived as a red flag by potential buyers. Insurance companies are often accused of over-reacting to recent data (eg, a recent hurricane will jump up insurance next year). That being said, the insurance companies are also likely to actually look at the data and dis-regard pr spin when they are on the hook for the damages. By removing the insurance co's scrutiny from the data as well, it kills two birds with a single stone.
- ams6110 13y agoYou're right, I glanced over that part of the statement, and thought he was just trying to assure owners that they "are covered" in case their car bursts into flames.
- loceng 13y agoOr at minimum an excuse for insurance companies to charge more. And Tesla keeping this insurance, at minimum, allows them to manage the costs for owners - and if there are 'profits' to the 'paid' insurance (embedded in cost of car, and the ecosystem as a whole), then it is Tesla that gains the benefits either as profit or can re-invest it into their ecosystem. Insurance overall is a scam, however government and politicians prefer to not be responsible or accountable by allowing private for-profit companies take advantage of everyone.
- soperj 13y agoYou should qualify that with "In the U.S., government and politicians..." My car insurance in Canada is public, and quite affordable($66 a month.)
- eigenvector 13y agoMy car insurance in Canada is not public and it is not affordable ($250/month with five years clean driving record) so you should perhaps qualify your statement as well. :)
- soperj 13y agoQualify it with what? It already is a specific case... MY car insurance.
- nonchalance 13y agoThat logic makes sense if you assume the only incidents are single-car. When this happens near other cars and is deemed to be the factor behind a multi-car accident, the insurance company still has to pay out for the other participants (unless you are in a no-fault state). I would argue that, regardless of the PR spin and warranties, unless Tesla takes liability for entire accidents I would expect insurance rates to skyrocket
- Guvante 13y agoWhy? Insurance companies are looking at the data and would easily find the 1/5 as likely to be in a vehicle fire bullet point.
- jlgreco 13y ago> "Insurance companies are often accused of over-reacting to recent data (eg, a recent hurricane will jump up insurance next year). That being said, the insurance companies are also likely to actually look at the data and dis-regard pr spin when they are on the hook for the damages." Could the surge in prices after a recent hurricane be the insurance company 'cashing in on'/exploiting the irrational reaction of the public, rather than the insurance company itself having an irrational reaction? Insurance companies can only survive long term if they are data-driven, so it seems likely to me that they are reacting rationally (although perhaps coldly) to an irrational market reaction.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ams6110 13y agoCompetition should also help here. If InsCo A is trying to overprice coverage due to a recent disaster, InsCo B can undercut their price.