But the counter-argument is that 'under-insurance' is a systemic risk that leads to insolvency. If a carrier collects premiums based on a $300k valuation but has to pay out on a $500k loss (due to Guaranteed Replacement Cost clauses or litigation), that loss ratio destroys the pool for everyone.
The incentive should be accurate pricing, but the market pressure to keep the sticker price low creates this dangerous gap.
avidiax•2w ago
They are in a much better position to predict when a home is underinsured, but they are allowed to only tell you if you try to claim.
Maybe we need a facts box that shows the estimated payout for various events and how much the out of pocket is. And it must be redlined on renewals.
insuranceguru•2w ago
The systemic issue right now is that the auto-inflation algorithms used by many legacy carriers are often loosely pegged to general Consumer Price Index rather than a localized Construction Cost Index. So you get a standard 4% limit increase while local lumber/labor costs spike 20%.
From a business perspective, insurers are terrified of 'sticker shock.' If they accurately updated the Replacement Cost to true 2026 values, the premium would jump, and the customer would churn. It’s an incentive misalignment where staying quiet retains the customer but leaves them exposed.