[RomanAlexander]

Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it? The agents are checking a box and the underwriter is sticking in a boilerplate "Customer said no trampoline therefore trampolines are excluded from this policy" text

[tptacek]

It depends on the policy, but either way, this is the kind of risk we're talking about managing with culls: trampolines, and bad roofs. I pay to keep my house up. You (say) don't. Why should I be OK with subsidizing your resulting claims with higher rates?

I think there's a sort of weird subtext in the "risk pooling" discussions on this thread that "risk pooling" is a way for people who don't replace their old roofs to get protection from the people who do. But that's not at all the concept! You refusing you repair your roof isn't an act of god; it's just recklessness.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You seem to be forgetting that this avoidance can work at two times:

1. pre-emptively dropping or refusing coverage

2. claim inspectors concluding the company has no liability for a particular incident.

It doesn't all need to be #2 (and probably should not be), but it also doesn't all need to be #1 either.

[hattmall]

#2 is less successful and incurs more costs. Trampolines are a good one because let's say you lie about a trampoline. Ok, great, we don't have to cover any trampoline related injuries. What are the chances that you would then lie and say that a broken arm occured on the steps instead and simply fail to mention the trampoline like you already did.

[tptacek]

You, the rogue trampoline owner, aren't really the party that the insurer is worried about. Your kid's best friend's parents are. (And it's not a broken arm they're really freaked out about --- don't make a homeowners claim over a broken arm, probably; it'll cost you more in the medium term --- it's death or paralysis, both of which will put millions of dollars on the line).

[NovemberWhiskey]

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.

[skissane]

It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insurer of this change in circumstances immediately, but you’ve forgotten that.

Also, it depends on the jurisdiction, but while the insurer can try to void the whole contract, courts don’t always let them do it, especially if the policyholder convinces the court it was an innocent mistake or oversight rather than a deliberate lie.

[tptacek]

This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.

[skissane]

We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tell them.

[tptacek]

Look, I hear you, but at some point this has to be on you. The CPSC has a thing dedicated to trampolines. The Mayo Clinic has articles about it. It is a huge cause of injuries of minors around the country. I'll grant that this is slightly more obscure an issue than swimming pools, but there are tons of swimming pool buyers who would make similar claims ("nobody told me swimming pools were that risky, this is just fine print mumbo jumbo"), and I don't think anyone here would entertain those.

[skissane]

Well, I'm not in America, and I'm wondering if this is an American thing?

I just checked my insurance policy. The word "trampoline" never once occurs in it. I don't think my insurer cares about trampolines.

If I think about it: given the absurdly large payouts for some injury lawsuits in the US, I understand why American insurers might be particularly sensitive to things that might induce injury, like trampolines. Given Australian courts tend to be much more modest in the damages they award, I can see why Australian insurers might not see them as something worth paying any special attention to.

Also, even in the US: it might seem obvious to someone who grew up there, but for an immigrant from a country with a different insurance system, it wouldn’t be obvious

[hattmall]

I just bought homeowners, it didn't ask anything about trampolines. Am I expected to call them up and inform about one? They specifically ask about a pool and if it is fenced or not.

[EricE]

There were some neighbors down the street from my parents that put a trampoline right next to several decorative boulders. These weren't small - same height as the trampoline (at least 4 feet) and very jagged. Thankfully it disappeared again within a couple of days but my god can people be STUPID.

[BeFlatXIII]

Glad you’re not my neighbor.

[WalterBright]

Our economy runs on contracts. If one is able to avoid the terms of the contract by claiming one didn't read it, the whole system falls apart.

(When I bought a house, the sales contract was maybe 50 pages. I went to the escrow company to sign. The escrow agent was visibly annoyed that I leaned back in the chair and set about reading every page. One of the pages that needed to be signed said nothing but "I have read and understood this contract.")

[skissane]

> If one is able to avoid the terms of the contract by claiming one didn't read it, the whole system falls apart.

Except, Courts have ruled that you can, at least sometimes, get out of the fine print of a contract by claiming you didn't read it. For example, see the notable 1962 Supreme Court of California case, Steven v. Fidelity Casualty Co [0].

In 1957, plaintiff purchased a life insurance policy covering plane crashes, from a vending machine in Los Angeles, with his wife as the beneficiary. His itinerary took him from LA to Chicago, and from there to Dayton, Ohio. On his return from Dayton to Chicago, he'd scheduled a one night stopover in Terre Haute, Indiana. In the morning, he went to the airport in Terre Haute, and was distressed to discover the flight had been cancelled due to technical issues, and he was going to miss his connection in Chicago. The airline agent referred him to a charter airline, who organised a charter flight for him and a handful of other passengers back to Chicago. Sadly, the charter flight crashed, and he died.

His widow sought to claim on the life insurance policy. The insurer denied the claim, on the grounds that the fine print of the policy said that it only applied to scheduled air carriers, not charter flights, and hence the flight on which the insured died was excluded. His widow sued the insurance company in the name of her deceased husband. The trial court sided with the insurer, on the grounds that this clause was clearly stated in the fine print of the policy, which the policyholder was expected to have read, and he had signed to say that he had.

However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of California overturned the judgement, and ruled for the widow. It held that, for consumer insurance contracts, any clause or exclusion which the policyholder could not have reasonably expected, must be pointed out prominently, not buried in the fine print. Since, it ruled, the policyholder had no particular reason to expect the exclusion of charter flights, and the insurer had not prominently stated that exclusion in the policy (e.g. by using a larger font), it was not legally binding.

And, from what I understand, the rule established in this 1962 case is followed in California law to this day, and has also been adopted by the courts of several other US states

[0] https://casetext.com/case/steven-v-fidelity-casualty-co

[WalterBright]

Frankly, the court ruled wrongly. The ruling throws all kinds of things in a contract in doubt, and that's no good for either party.

Why should anyone think the fine print is irrelevant? Everything in a contract is relevant, or it wouldn't be in the contract.

[theluketaylor]

That makes sense in a vacuum, but in the real world not everyone is a lawyer and corporations have a vast power imbalance compared with a member of the general public. It's incredibly easy to bury something surprising among many other clauses, such as only scheduled flights being covered and not charters. The idea certain potentially surprising clauses need to more prominent seems pretty reasonable on balance. The onus is still on the signing party to read them, but they are afforded the opportunity to notice among many clauses these are ones that deserve special attention.

That means there will always be an argument around what a reasonable party would consider a surprising clause, but contract law disputes deal with nuance, edge cases, and what a reasonable party would expect all the time. With rulings like this corporations will air on the side of caution when taking big swings in forming their agreements since litigation is so costly and the outcome so uncertain. Consumers gain a little power back (though still far from equal footing).

This should only apply when there are large power imbalances, such as individual people entering agreements with vast multinational corporations. When big corps ink deals with each other caveat emptor should reign; they have equal opportunity to review and understand the terms and therefore have to live with the consequences.

[BeFlatXIII]

Why are parts of the contract allowed to be in different size typeface in the first place? There should only be headings and body text, no other sizes.

[tptacek]

I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won.

I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepresentations unrelated to your claim, but certainly there's no moral argument that it shouldn't work that way.

[pxeboot]

> Wouldn't said trampoline simply not be covered by the policy since you lied about it?

This doesn't stop expensive lawsuits, even if they ultimately don't pay the claim.

[potatolicious]

Also doesn't stop the lawsuit between the policy holder and the insurance company, which also costs money.

Whereas your ability to sue for a non-existent policy (or one where that was unambiguously canceled) is... much less.

[WalterBright]

It would be hard for the insurance company to prove that the head injury was from the trampoline rather than tripping on the porch.

[firesteelrain]

It increases the chance of a claim against the homeowner insurance if a neighbor's kid gets injured on your property. Even if it ultimately will be on you, the insurance company will likely get sued and may settle which increases costs. They'd rather go the cheaper, drone surveillance route to find offenders early and warn them or else.

[JumpCrisscross]

Trampoline is a bad example. Pool is not. That could threaten your house’s structure, or cause damage to your neighbour’s in a storm. The article gave an example of an overhanging tree—it makes sense for the population to segregate into those who will manage that risk and those who won’t, with the latter being charged a higher premium.

[tptacek]

Pools are insurance issues because people die in them, and their nexts of kin sue the homeowner.

[BeFlatXIII]

We ought to change the law to stiff the money-seeking families of victims. So long as the pool was fenced or fully above ground (required a ladder to access)

[firesteelrain]

Pools are 'attractive nuisances'