[hn_throwaway_99]

I 100% agree with landedgentry. I don't really have any problem with insurers using drone photos - anyone can take drone photos of anyone else's property - and I'm not really a fan of the article calling it "spying" to imply some special kind of nefarious behavior.

But I do think the total bullshit is that companies are just using it to come up with essentially fake reasons to drop customers:

> Cindy Picos was dropped by her home insurer last month. The reason: aerial photos of her roof, which her insurer refused to let her see. ... Her insurer said its images showed her roof had “lived its life expectancy.” Picos paid for an independent inspection that found the roof had another 10 years of life. Her insurer declined to reconsider its decision.

I also don't have a problem if an insurer decides to leave a state entirely - that decision is essentially saying the state has made it impossible for them to adequately price risk, and that's something the state should fix if so desired.

But these BS cancellation reasons seem like a case of insurers wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I'm not very familiar with state-by-state insurance law, but I'm assuming they have to come up with some reason to drop a homeowner that already has a policy, so this looks like they're trying to find BS reasons to just drop potentially less profitable parts of their portfolio.

[overstay8930]

Independent inspectors almost always say what whoever is paying them wants to hear (see: Florida). 10 years left on a roof usually means the next large wind storm will take it out, they’re not paid to look for that.

[hn_throwaway_99]

But independent inspectors usually generate a report that explains at least some of their rationale. Even if it is biased, it can at least be scrutinized.

That is in sharp contrast to the insurance company that is supposedly making their determination based on drone photos that they won't even let their clients see.

[overstay8930]

If multiple insurance companies say you need a new roof, you need a new roof. Full stop. There’s no justification necessary.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Quite literally, what are you talking about? There were no "multiple insurance companies", there was a single insurance company that dropped the policy holder quoted in the article.

Besides, the article quotes from insurance company agents that directly refutes what you are saying: "Brink, who worked for Farmers in Michigan, said some customers were dropped based on aerial images that were two or three years old. One person wasn’t renewed because of a roof, despite its being brand new."

Full stop. (I just like how people think that adding "full stop" to their comments somehow makes their position unassailable or something...)

[overstay8930]

I’m not sure why you’re sherry picking the article, it very clearly says multiple insurance companies are doing this, and you claim this is some sort of bad thing that would stop someone from getting insurance.

Your logic is completely falling apart, that’s why you’re confused.

[halfcat]

Why aren’t insurance companies required to operate like market makers in the equities markets, where they’re free to choose the price they’re offering, but must offer a price in the market they’re in?

If the roof needs replacing (in the insurance company’s view) then charge whatever the rate is that covers that and still makes them a profit. Don’t just deny coverage.

[rybosworld]

If you ever look at the options chain on a thinly traded equity, you'll notice small volume and very large bid/ask spreads. Sometimes the bid/ask spread is so large that it looks like a computer glitch.

The primary insurance market is even more illiquid than thinly traded options.

[overstay8930]

They will just charge the customer the price of a new roof, there’s no point in what you’re asking for.