Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiouscavalier | Hacker News Reader

The issue is that often the data gathered and used with no consideration of other evidence. For example, I had a similar situation of home insurance sending a letter demanding I replace my roof based on drone footage. No issue was immediately obvious from the footage and we had just replaced the roof less than 5 years earlier. We had an inspection done and then sent both proof of replacement and the inspection report. We were told the drone footage alone would be used in their decision, and we still had to replace the roof to keep coverage.

So it is not necessarily objective, fairly considered observations (and I think pretty different from speeding tickets). At least in our case it was maximally for the benefit of the insurer. I think that is relevant to their claimed premise.

View on HN

Insurance is fundamentally lopsided in the risk of a bad decision by the insurer. They have little incentive to keep you as a customer, since the potential profit is just not that big. And thus they have little incentive to do a thorough investigation of potential problems. It's just not worth it. They'd rather dump you, or risk forcing you to replace a perfectly good roof, than put effort into determining whether their report is accurate.

It's a funny business. Every insurer wants better risk assessment, since it's a competitive advantage. At the same time, the better the risk assessment gets, the less point there is to having insurance in the first place. At the limit, insurers that could accurately predict the future would charge you premiums equal to your actual future costs and you might as well just put the premiums in a savings account instead.

Just switch to a better insurer. Unlike health insurance, homeowners insurance is available from a huge number of providers that are all in a competitive market, and you can go with a big name like State Farm or go to an independent agent and shop the market.

> We were told the drone footage alone would be used in their decision, and we still had to replace the roof to keep coverage.

This is the point where you stop talking to the insurance company and start talking to an attorney as well as your state insurance commission.

Not everyone has $20k to retain an attorney.

Never heard of this happening. It's weird anyway because roofs are something you're expected to maintain and are pro-rated. If you have storm damage to a 20 year old roof, your insurance is only going to pay for the estimated remaining life, not the full cost of a new roof.

If the roof is beyond end-of-life they probably won't pay anything, as it's a predictable cost of owning a home not an unexpected loss which is what insurance is for. Same reason they won't pay to have a tree taken down just because it could fall and cause damage. You're supposed to maintain your property; insurance is for losses beyond normal wear and tear/maintenance expense.

The house insurance in this case is a part of a mortgage contract or voluntary insurance? And if it is a part of a mortgage (as an extra payment), how does one predict how much they will have to pay for unexpected things like fixing the roof, and how does one estimate the full cost of a loan?

Also if it is a part of the mortgage why doesn't the lender pay for it? They need it, not the homeowner.

Is insurance company affiliated with companies doing the repairs?

I wouldn't accept a five-year old report either. Stuff can change in five months.

If you end up with a roof that doesn’t last 5 years, isn’t that the kind of thing you’re buying insurance for in the first place? It’s an unexpected risk that a lot of people would have trouble predicting.

Homeowner’s insurance does not cover replacing a roof after 5 years if poor workmanship or substandard materials are the reason that replacement is needed.

The report was done at the time of the dispute. The roof was 5 years old.

Pretty sure they had the inspection done at the time of rejection.

Were you able to get insurance from another insurer?

Yes, that ended up being the solution. Cost aside, I’d find it pretty wasteful to do the replacement.

Honestly I'd report it to the state insurance commission. Did they call out any specific issue with the roof at any point? Some kind of new code they were mandating an upgrade to or anything?

Yeah, I probably should have reported it at the time. They didn’t cite anything specific even after we requested what in the on-roof (not drone) inspection indicated an issue or was missing from the inspection.

Though to be precise, this was over a year ago so I’m not remembering their exact wording. But it likely wasn’t literally “drone footage alone,” but probably something more like “our drone footage and associated analysis” — in any case the effective interpretation being “we don’t care about installation date or your inspection. Replace it or lose coverage.”

Not that it makes it right, but there’s enough providers in my area it was less effort to get new coverage than continue to fight them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com