[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.