[w10-1]

We had such a notice, for moss and mold (in a hot, dry climate). The images were accurate enough. The insurance company relented after we remediated and sent photos.

Image recognition is not really "AI-driven", and the low numbers make that replaceable with humans. It's the cost and legality of drone roof photos that make this possible.

The risk represented in the photos was relatively small, but it's a risk easily and legally measured. Then the higher cost of fix + verify is shifted to the homeowner.

The real beneficiary is roofing companies, raising the question of illegal tying. Insurance is required by mortgages, so homeowners have no choice but abate with roofing services, which creates an opportunity for the insurance company and roofers to share value extracted in various ways. Which ways are legal is an open question. The value extracted is bounded by the cost of switching, which involves another company assessing your property in some way; tight home insurance markets thus increase the value extractable.

Insurance mandates and reliance require regulation, as does using private insurance for large social risks like wildfire and earthquakes, but that all makes insurance less competitive by reducing viability of new entrants.

Nothing in the chain of reasoning - from drone pictures to investor decisions - is improper, but boy the resulting homeowner squeeze is painful.

[legitster]

Moss and mold is extremely damaging to roofs - even in dry climates. And roofs are expensive.

If the insurance company convinced you to go up and "remediate" the moss problem it sounds like the system worked and they spared you (and them) from an expensive roof replacement.

[everybodyknows]

> ... creates an opportunity for the insurance company and roofers to share value extracted in various ways ...

This opportunity is naturally enlarged in jurisdictions that drive down the population of business competitors with aggressive misregulation -- California.

[jawns]

Unless the insurance company mandates that you use a particular roofing company to address the problem, I can't see how that would constitute illegal tying.

I would expect the insurance company would say something like, "We noticed this problem with your roof. Please correct it or we'll cancel your policy." And then the homeowner is free to choose any roofing company they want to remediate.

Heck, the insurance company could even say, "Here are some reputable roofing companies in your area, but you're still free to select any company you want," and I doubt that would constitute tying.

And anyway, even if you could make the argument that roofing companies in the aggregate will benefit from these sorts of policies, it's not as if keeping one's roof in good condition is forcing consumers to make unreasonable purchases.

[gruez]

>The real beneficiary is roofing companies, raising the question of illegal tying. Insurance is required by mortgages, so homeowners have no choice but abate with roofing services, which creates an opportunity for the insurance company and roofers to share value extracted in various ways.

How is the insurance company going to get a share of the "value extracted"?

[dwaltrip]

A “referral bonus” or such would do the trick.

[gruez]

Any evidence this is actually happening?