When an insured comes to the realization that their home is in harms way and has the potential of a large claim…or if there are a lot of Halloween decorations.
This works only if the photos are updated. Many times the photos are a year or two out of date and often what the underwriter sees is no longer there. Instead of brush, there are now new homes where the brush once was. As long as we keep allowing homes to be built next to brush this will continue to be a problem. The fault lies with cities allowing these home to be built in the first place. It is not the fault of the insurance companies. Maybe the state ought to develop a Homeowner Fair Plan policy for homes near brush. This would solve a whole lot of problems for the consumer in that they would be able to get a real homeowners policy rather than a dwelling fire fair plan policy or some non-admitted policy.
Garimendi needs to put his thinking cap on.
Harvey’s at it again. Carriers have be asking about distance from brush since the Bel Air fire. Now the carriers can penpoint the issue. What Harvey is unhappy about is the the “game” aspect is gone and accurate information is available.
You are correct about the vintage of some of this info. However, as more and more commercial satellites go up, the date and resolution will get better and better with each passing day.
You are absolutely correct about asking the insured about distance. I have tryed to tell people that consumers tend to give any answers that will help their premiums stay low. Similar to “do you work more than 5 miles from you home?”
Safeco underwriting used photo books of the LA area in 1972. The clarity was equal to RiskMeter for the .5 mile distance. Those in Underwriting at the time, may remember the individual surcharges on houses in the brush.
What people don’t realize is that this can also be used to HELP them procure coverage! I’ve just started using riskmeter.com this week and have been able to get a carrier to reconsider their decisions to non-renew 2 policies! Why develop the technology if we’re not going to take advantage of it???
As long as the system that is being used is up to date I don’t see any problem with using satellite photos. I always go to globeXplorer to check out a photo of the area. May not be up to date, but when customers tell you that they are not close to brush and you pull up the photo and gee wiz, their home backs right up to the next wildfire about to happen you have to wonder if they know that they have to tell you that they are not near brush to get a quote. Here is the Link http://imageatlas.globexplorer.com/ImageAtlas/view.do?group=ImageAtlas
Dear Jim, Commander Dave & Glenn: You hit the nail on the head! no pun intended) My own first thought was: Garamendi (Quackamendi?)? thinking cap? C’mon!!!!
We are wholesalers and use both non admitted and admitted markets. The companies we represent on both sides were hit very hard in the October fires of last year. After reviewing the applications of those risks lost in fires, almost every application stated “NO” on the question asking if there is any brush exposure. Since then, we have been using riskmeter, we are now able to catch these “misrepresented” applications prior to binding and subjecting our good companies to losses. This helps their loss ratios. If the loss ratios are lower, then the companies will charge lower premiums. Why don’t Mr. Garamendi and his followers get that???????
Because he doesn’t understand insurance. He just understands how to get people riled up against the carriers so they will vote for him. He did a lousy job as commissioner before & it appears nothing has changed!
It is not intrusive. Please understand that this technology has been around for years. These are pictures taken as satellites orbit the earth. This is not real time video, but instead a snap shot from space. This is info available nationwide and might be able to help you if you write Coastal, Flood, Brush, etc.
Melissa, You are right on the Money. Imagine that…Insurance people actually having factual data to determiine what type of risk you are underwriting. It does not surprise me that consumers would be aggravated that insurance companies have tools to catch “misrepresentation”
Harvey,
At what distance does a photograph of a house and surrounding areas become “Scary and creepy”?
When an insured comes to the realization that their home is in harms way and has the potential of a large claim…or if there are a lot of Halloween decorations.
This works only if the photos are updated. Many times the photos are a year or two out of date and often what the underwriter sees is no longer there. Instead of brush, there are now new homes where the brush once was. As long as we keep allowing homes to be built next to brush this will continue to be a problem. The fault lies with cities allowing these home to be built in the first place. It is not the fault of the insurance companies. Maybe the state ought to develop a Homeowner Fair Plan policy for homes near brush. This would solve a whole lot of problems for the consumer in that they would be able to get a real homeowners policy rather than a dwelling fire fair plan policy or some non-admitted policy.
Garimendi needs to put his thinking cap on.
Harvey’s at it again. Carriers have be asking about distance from brush since the Bel Air fire. Now the carriers can penpoint the issue. What Harvey is unhappy about is the the “game” aspect is gone and accurate information is available.
You are correct about the vintage of some of this info. However, as more and more commercial satellites go up, the date and resolution will get better and better with each passing day.
You are absolutely correct about asking the insured about distance. I have tryed to tell people that consumers tend to give any answers that will help their premiums stay low. Similar to “do you work more than 5 miles from you home?”
What are the chances of getting a satellite pic of Garamendi with his thinking cap on? I’ve got $10 that says no way!
oh I don’t know he is/has a fat head!
Yes more information is always a serious problem. Let’s not let the facts get in the way our desires.
Safeco underwriting used photo books of the LA area in 1972. The clarity was equal to RiskMeter for the .5 mile distance. Those in Underwriting at the time, may remember the individual surcharges on houses in the brush.
Sorry about the thinking cap. I was being kind.
What people don’t realize is that this can also be used to HELP them procure coverage! I’ve just started using riskmeter.com this week and have been able to get a carrier to reconsider their decisions to non-renew 2 policies! Why develop the technology if we’re not going to take advantage of it???
Hi Joy,
Could you tell me the carriers? I would like to know if they are currently using the product. Email me directly if you would like.
jmunson@cdsys.com
As long as the system that is being used is up to date I don’t see any problem with using satellite photos. I always go to globeXplorer to check out a photo of the area. May not be up to date, but when customers tell you that they are not close to brush and you pull up the photo and gee wiz, their home backs right up to the next wildfire about to happen you have to wonder if they know that they have to tell you that they are not near brush to get a quote. Here is the Link http://imageatlas.globexplorer.com/ImageAtlas/view.do?group=ImageAtlas
Dear Jim, Commander Dave & Glenn: You hit the nail on the head! no pun intended) My own first thought was: Garamendi (Quackamendi?)? thinking cap? C’mon!!!!
It seems a bit intrusive but I guess drastic times call for drastic measures…
Hope “they” don’t decide to get a pre-binder peek inside the houses to see who’s using too many candles or burning too many dinners(?!)
Too bad the insureds feel compelled to lie about brush exposure in the first place.
It must be very challenging to write insurance in California!
We are wholesalers and use both non admitted and admitted markets. The companies we represent on both sides were hit very hard in the October fires of last year. After reviewing the applications of those risks lost in fires, almost every application stated “NO” on the question asking if there is any brush exposure. Since then, we have been using riskmeter, we are now able to catch these “misrepresented” applications prior to binding and subjecting our good companies to losses. This helps their loss ratios. If the loss ratios are lower, then the companies will charge lower premiums. Why don’t Mr. Garamendi and his followers get that???????
Because he doesn’t understand insurance. He just understands how to get people riled up against the carriers so they will vote for him. He did a lousy job as commissioner before & it appears nothing has changed!
It is not intrusive. Please understand that this technology has been around for years. These are pictures taken as satellites orbit the earth. This is not real time video, but instead a snap shot from space. This is info available nationwide and might be able to help you if you write Coastal, Flood, Brush, etc.
Melissa, You are right on the Money. Imagine that…Insurance people actually having factual data to determiine what type of risk you are underwriting. It does not surprise me that consumers would be aggravated that insurance companies have tools to catch “misrepresentation”