Hacker News Reader

> Normally getting insurance from a startup like Corgi would be a very bad idea because what’s to say they’ll be able to pay out claims?

Actually normally it’s fine because it’s rarely the startup selling insurance who’s doing the underwriting.

Corgi is more worrying because they’re (apparently) underwriting too.

View on HN

My understanding is a normal insurance tech startup would be acting as a broker.

A rare but sensible insurance tech startup would use external underwriters and reinsurance and provide insolvency protection.

Corgi doesn’t have any external underwriters, doesn’t have any insolvency protection, doesn’t have any reinsurance.

I think they’re bad on all 3 points, not just the underwriting?

If this is the scenario, it's no wonder they're underwriting everyone & everything, and can do this competitively, because a broker would need to find either enough new clients and/or efficiencies to justify being the middleman between the customer and the actual insurer. That's typically been the strategy of every financial tech company; I don't see any secret sauce with Corgi beyond "'cause AI!". Move fast and break things is not what I'd want in my insurance company.

look at coalition or atbay as an example of how an insurtech starts underwriting and moves into capacity later successfully

Reply on news.ycombinator.com