Article closes by noting that property could be under daily surveillance.

 

Quote

Geospatial Insurance Consortium, a company providing aerial imagery and geospatial information to insurers, says its airplane imagery program covers 99 percent of the U.S. population. 'We've seen a dramatic increase across the country in reports from consumers who've been dropped by their insurers on the basis of an aerial image,' said Amy Bach, executive director of consumer group United Policyholders.

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13278975/home-insurance-companies-spy-coverage-drone.html

 

I must admit after looking at the photographs in the article that those people pictured should have had their insurance cancelled. Would hate to live nearby their homes.

I don't know the details and I don't care enough to check for them.

 

But, in general, insurance companies have contracts with lots of conditions. And if those conditions are not met, then maybe they will not pay for a claim.

So, in case that people violate those conditions, what is better, that the insurance company cancels the coverage or that the insurance company continues to collect the money but then refuses to pay?

 

I see that this story is about homeowners in California. The Golden State is known for its strict regulatory environment when it comes to insurance.

 

This is usually good for consumers, but it can backfire, too. It seems that Cali does not allow insurers to charge higher rates based upon increased risk on a property, leaving only non-renewal as an option to balance their portfolio. 

 

Here's an article describing the situation: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-news/wildfire-home-insurance-natural-disaster-climate-change/3230089/ and a key paragraph from this article:

 

"Unlike other states, California does not let insurance companies consider current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what's happened on a property in the past to set the price."

 

The bit about using aerial surveillance to gather underwriting info is a bit troubling, but I guess if it legal and cost-effective, they'll do it until stopped by law or regulation.

23 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I don't know the details and I don't care enough to check for them.

 

But, in general, insurance companies have contracts with lots of conditions. And if those conditions are not met, then maybe they will not pay for a claim.

So, in case that people violate those conditions, what is better, that the insurance company cancels the coverage or that the insurance company continues to collect the money but then refuses to pay?

 

 

Turning a swimming pool into an open air concrete pit just might be enhancing the hazard, I'd think. Would much rather fall into water accidentally than hit solid concrete ten feet down.

22 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

I see that this story is about homeowners in California. The Golden State is known for its strict regulatory environment when it comes to insurance.

 

This is usually good for consumers, but it can backfire, too. It seems that Cali does not allow insurers to charge higher rates based upon increased risk on a property, leaving only non-renewal as an option to balance their portfolio. 

 

Here's an article describing the situation: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/california-news/wildfire-home-insurance-natural-disaster-climate-change/3230089/ and a key paragraph from this article:

 

"Unlike other states, California does not let insurance companies consider current or future risks when deciding how much to charge for an insurance policy. Instead, they can only consider what's happened on a property in the past to set the price."

 

The bit about using aerial surveillance to gather underwriting info is a bit troubling, but I guess if it legal and cost-effective, they'll do it until stopped by law or regulation.

 

The one guy who apparently is operating a junkyard in his front yard would likely be causing a higher chance of liability for neighbors or anyone unfortunate enough to live near him.

21 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

The one guy who apparently is operating a junkyard in his front yard would likely be causing a higher chance of liability for neighbors or anyone unfortunate enough to live near him.

 

Yes, this kind of situation can increase not only that individual's own exposure to loss, but also his neighbors' as well. This could result in his neighbors losing their insurance as well unless regulations prevent it.