Hacker News Reader

Comment by pi-e-sigma | Hacker News Reader

Can you provide source of your outlandish claim?

On the contrary, the outlandish claim seems to be that anything could be impossible to insure.

Insure profitably? Sure. At some point, the cost of the premium exceeds the cost of the thing being insured, making it pointless to insure.

Some people describe this scenario as something being "impossible to insure", but it's not meant in the literal sense. In fact I would argue that there is no insurance company that would decline to insure a $100 million cargo through a combat zone, if the premium offered was $150 million.

So no actual source?

The article from flexport states that insurance rates through there are 3.5x of what they were in the beginning of december

Do you have a source for your extraordinary claim that such insurance cannot be bought? Surely such a divergence from the status quo would be written somewhere more official than a social media comment.

War risk insurance absolutely exists.

> Insurance industry sources said that war risk premiums had stayed firm on Monday at between 0.05% to 0.1% of the value of a ship, from around 0.03% estimated last week before the attacks.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/war-risk-insurance...

The original claim was about 'sailing in a conflict zone', a.k.a. getting fire insurance for a house that is already on fire.

The original claim is "You cant get insurance for sailing in a conflict zone." Which we have clearly shown is false by showing current insurance rates for sailing in this conflict zone.

https://youtu.be/8GKlKYQDDcQ Someplace in that hour long video he give the current insurance rates for this route, and how the cost of insurance compares to going around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com