Hacker News Reader

Comment by peteretep | Hacker News Reader

I don't like this. It seems to set a precedent that in the opposite situation (I dunno, a haze that pushes up auto-accidents?) then they might take the opposite tack. People pay insurance to (massively simplified) even out payments for unlikely events, and messing around with that -- even in a direction that short-term seems good for consumers -- seems questionable.

View on HN

But they do this already. In Colorado many insurers raised rates when we had a large hail storm that caused widespread damage. Allstate roughly doubled my premium because of it (or so they said), even though I parked my car in a garage both at home and at work at the time. I found a better rate elsewhere, but I’m sure others just paid it.

So the fact that they’re offering a reduction seems fair, I guess. Although I wonder if they’re really only seeing a 15% reduction in costs.

What's stopping them from increasing premiums today? They quote every 3 - 6 months and can increase premiums across the board if auto-accidents trend upward.

If you are referring to increasing premiums in the middle of a quote cycle, that's not possible due to how the terms of the quote are worded. The insurance industry is regulated.

That concept already exists, but instead of charging customers, the insurance company calls on its own insurance company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance

There’s no mechanism for that other than increasing renewal rates for actuarial reasons, which for auto would be a longer term trend.

As the other commenter pointed out, reinsurance covers expensive disasters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com