Insurance companies using sattelite photos to determine coverage

[question]

Sheree DiCicco was shocked to learn that her insurance company used satellite images to determine her home was located too close to brush and would not be reinsured because of the potential for wildfire damage.

"I didn't know insurance companies would, or even could, do such a thing,'' said DiCicco, who lives in Auburn in the Sierra foothills northeast of Sacramento.

Increasingly, however, insurance companies are using satellites to identify homes at high risk of fire damage because of their proximity to brush, a development that alarms some state regulators and privacy advocates.

First American Property and Casualty Insurance Co., which insures DiCicco's home, uses satellite imagery to examine about 10 percent of the properties it insures, the company said. Most of them are in areas of heavy brush in California, Nevada and Arizona.

First American spokeswoman Jo Etta Bandy told the Los Angeles Times for a story in Saturday's editions that if satellite images are questioned, field inspectors can be called in to make determinations about coverage of homes, she said.

But state regulators say the practice is a form of redlining, discriminating against particular neighborhoods, and could lead to policies being arbitrarily canceled. Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi called it a serious problem but said he does not have the legal right to stop it.

"Insurance companies are using satellite imagery and just plain photos to redline vast areas of the state without taking into account the individual circumstances of an individual home,'' he said.

In California particularly, more insurance companies have turned to technology to help with risk assessment after last year's wildfires caused $2.6 billion in losses in Southern California.

Pete Moraga, spokesman for Insurance Information Network of California, a media relations organization supported by insurers, said use of satellite technology may prove to be positive if it makes the industry more efficient.

But Harvey Rosenfield, spokesman for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said the practice made him uneasy.

"I'd not heard of this before; it's scary,'' he said. "It has a creepy, intrusive aspect to it.''

taken from : > Insurance Journal <

[question]

You'd want your insurance company that's written your policy for 10 years to suddenly check you, and the 5 houses surrouinding yours, sattlelite photo to say "You're too close to X, we can't insure you anymore"?

The point is that the practice is discriminatory.

But state regulators say the practice is a form of redlining, discriminating against particular neighborhoods, and could lead to policies being arbitrarily canceled. Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi called it a serious problem but said he does not have the legal right to stop it.

I personally wouldn't want to get a call from my agent saying "Sorry Scott, we've determined that you're too close to this creek, and it's a flood danger. We're gonna have to cancel your policy even though in the 15 years you've been with us, you've never once made a flood claim. We can't take the chance of you actually making a flood claim on your flood insurance."

What's the point of even having insurance, if they're going to cancel you because of risks? Isn't that the reason you have insurance to being with?

Originally Posted by E-brake

How is that any diffrent from having an inspector come out to your house? When you insure something worht a lot of money like a house the insurance company is going to assess the risk to that item one way or another. Personally I would much rather have them do it thru a satelite photo than waste a Saturday of my time waiting for the inspector to show up and look around in person.

[question]

The point is that more and more companies are using those photos to tell people they won't cover them. What happens when all insurance companies refuse to insure those people?

Originally Posted by E-brake

I just had that exact thing happen at my place. After 5 years of insurance they cancled my policy because my swimming pool did not have depth markings around the edge. This is the same pool in the same exact condition that it was in 5 years ago. They didnt just cancle the policy that related to the pool, the cancled the policy for the entire property, all policys. Didnt even give me a chance to fix it, or notify me that it needed to be done, so I used the oportunity to find a new insurance company not operated by retards...jsut like the peple in California can do. Its not liek ther arent thousands of insurance companies to chose from, give your money to another company if you dont like the company you haev taking pictures of your home.

[thumpcbd]

Originally Posted by question

The point is that more and more companies are using those photos to tell people they won't cover them. What happens when all insurance companies refuse to insure those people?

Some insurance company will decide that there is a market in these houses that have been denied insurance for XXXX reason. Welcome to the "free market"

Same arguement could be used with canceling someones drives insurance because they moved to an unsafe area...it happens and someone with notice and fill the gap eventually.

[broken]

Thats nothing.... have you hear about the point system that the DPS has setup in Texas where they want to fine you yearly for tickets you've had in the past. I'll see if I can dig of the link I had for it, but it was all crazy 1984 style shit.

[Adam D]

Insurance is crazy. It's really shitty to customers, no matter what it covers.

From a logical standpoint, it makes no sense to cancel policies on people who stand the greatest risk, because you can change absurd premiums and they really have no choice but to pay it. That goes for auto, health, home, etc. whatever you want. It just makes sense to take on the customers that you can profit most from.

That's basically the way that they calculate most people's insurance. Charge you as much as they can without losing you as a customer.

However, somewhere in the process you hit a point in which you become uninsurable because the risk is great that you will cash in on your insurance enough that you become unprofitable no matter how much they try to charge you in premiums to recoop. Because insurance companies want you to pay premiums and never cash in on them.

So even if you're the perfect driver/health/quiet homestead/etc. and you pay the lowest premiums, you're the ideal candidate because ultimately you're most profitable because you're least likely to cash in.

Often, those who need insurance the most are least likely to find it.

[MysteryMeat]

The issue I have with the insurance industry is those types of insurance that are required by law. We're talking such insurances as homeowner's and car insurance -- I understand the reasonings, but I'm sure we can all agree that insurance is one of the most unethical legal businesses out there. To me, requiring people to pay an exorbinant amount for something either 1) they may never use or 2) they may never see a dime of it if they need it -- I call that extortion.

Of course, this country doesn't require or provide more important types of insurance like *health* insurance or something of that nature. And I still have no idea how insurance companies are still allowed to get away with age and gender discrimination ON A REGULAR BASIS. Can anyone say: powerful lobby?

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by MysteryMeat

The issue I have with the insurance industry is those types of insurance that are required by law. We're talking such insurances as homeowner's and car insurance -- I understand the reasonings, but I'm sure we can all agree that insurance is one of the most unethical legal businesses out there. To me, requiring people to pay an exorbinant amount for something either 1) they may never use or 2) they may never see a dime of it if they need it -- I call that extortion.

Of course, this country doesn't require or provide more important types of insurance like *health* insurance or something of that nature. And I still have no idea how insurance companies are still allowed to get away with age and gender discrimination ON A REGULAR BASIS. Can anyone say: powerful lobby?

Extremely.

The health industry as a whole funds massive amounts of PR campaigns, PACs and campaigns. Oddly enough the health industry (in particular insurance and pharmaceuticals) seems to favor Republicans by a very strong majority. Clinton: falling insurance costs. Bush II: rising insurance costs.

Everybody's insurance would probably be much lower if less money was circulated to campaigning and PR.


As far as the age/sex discrimination, it's allowed because equal protection is not an absolute. Businesses are allowed to discriminate based on age, race, creed, sex, etc. when it is necessary for the function of the business, and there would be no other reasonable way for the business to function otherwise. As a whole, our society believes a healthy 21 year old should not pay the same premiums as a fat, smoking 60 year old. To adequately respond to that, the insurance companies have to discriminate. (I'm not justifying or condemning it, just stating it as a matter of fact.)

[thumpcbd]

Originally Posted by E-brake

I just had that exact thing happen at my place. After 5 years of insurance they cancled my policy because my swimming pool did not have depth markings around the edge. This is the same pool in the same exact condition that it was in 5 years ago.

Yea, this is something that I would be pissed about, the pool was existing before the original insurance was issued, unless repairs were made to it that changed its state...but brush could grow around the house natrually and change the insurability of it. I don't think you should loose coverage for a preexisting condition without notice, especially if given a few weeks you could remedy the problem.

casey