How does on-demand insurance company Trov prevent insurance fraud or high prices?
Anything can be insured for the right price... this product is offered for devices at higher risk, which would be logical purpose of owner needing coverage for a specific length of time. Typically this would be a type of adverse selection, but TROV targets customers that typically would not require insurance on their device, but as you said they may be traveling and putting their devices at added risk. Like all insurance companies, their Loss Ratio (Losses/Premiums) will depend on the law of large numbers and spread of risk. As we know, the majority of the time trips are taken, electronics make it back home safely. Like many tech companies, their advantage over conventional insurers is likely low overhead costs. Being on a mobile platform, they likely have a fraction of the claims handling cost of a conventional insurer. Payments are likely automated by linking bank accounts, so there is little transaction cost burden on this company. In short, their operation is likely highly automated with few staff and low expenses, allowing them to take on a higher loss ratio than conventional insurers and still leave room for profit. Without having ever used this service, I can tell you they likely price in anticipated fraud, the same way Walmart prices in inventory loss (shoplifting) into their prices. I personally would share your concern that it'd be difficult to combat fraud on such a platform, especially with no claims adjusters whom are typically the first line of defense. Again, I answer this never having used their service, but I work as an Analyst at a large insurer and these would be my assumptions based on what I know of TROV. For example, it is not allowed to buy flood insurance at peak flood season and then cancel it when it is over. They are not offering this right now. So it would be interesting to see if they offer this and how they offer this. For example, you can insure your camera for a week when you are going on vacation. They call it on-demand insurance. They segment Trov is targeting consumer electronics. More often people don't take insurance in this segment as the insurance cost is high and benefits low. However if going on vacation, most are afraid of loosing / damaging equipments. Generally although we are afraid, most often nothing happens. It is this segment; you make the insurance cheap and easy to buy and create a new segment.  Insurance fraud detection is an important part of insurance process such that insurance companies allocate a lot of resources to detect improper insurance claims. The website does not mention how they process claims. Although it looks easy, they may have a more stringent process. For example what is stopping me from buying an insurance after event; i.e. break my phone Monday, buy insurance on Monday and make a claim on Tuesday saying the phone broke on Tuesday. There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way. I am not familiar with the startup you mentioned, but in general there are three approaches to avoid losing money in insurance business: review before policy is issued (underwriting) review before claim is paid (claims handling) setting high enough rates to cover underwriting losses The fact that Trov is customer friendly / lax (make your choice of term) when issuing a policy says nothing about their rates or claims payment. It is even possible they are building a portfolio for sale, and do not really care about the claims performance (policies are sold / customers acquired now, and it takes a time for claims to arrive).
"As far as I can recall, savings and chequing accounts exist due to regulations on the banking industry that put were into effect after the depression to prevent a ""run"" on the bank.   A chequing account is a ""demand"" account, meaning you can go and demand your money, and they have to pay immediately, by means of a withdrawal or a cheque.  Banks used to get out of hand and loan out pretty much all the money they had on deposit, and of course those people with loans just put the money they borrowed into another chequing account and the bank loaned that out to someone else.  The money that people believed they had access to multiplied indefinitely.  However, when everyone goes to take that money out at the same time, you have a run on the bank.  Therefore, government regulations stipulate a % that the bank must have on-hand.  The typical number is 5%.  That effectively limits the money multiplier to 19 times. Savings accounts get around this restriction by putting limits on how much and how quickly you can withdraw the amounts.  They pay you more interest because the money in a savings account is worth more to them, because it's not subject to those restrictions. Some chequing accounts pay interest, but you have to maintain a minimum balance.  Some savings accounts allow you to write cheques, but I assume the withdrawal limitations probably still apply. There's also something to do with deposit insurance (as in, the chequing accounts are covered by government deposit insurance, but savings accounts are not).  I'm not 100% certain of that though." "The general answer to this is ""yes"".  When you're dealing with single-digit millionaires, the answer is that their insurance habits and needs are basically the same as everyone else.  When you get into the double digit and triple digit millionaires, or people worth billions, they have additional options, but those basically boil down to using ""self-insurance"" rather than paying a company for an insurance policy.  The following is based on both what I've read and a fair deal of personal experience working for or with various stripes of millionaire, and even one billionaire. Addressing the types of insurance you mention: This is generally used to provide survivors with a replacement for income you can no longer provide when dead, in addition to paying for costs associated with dying (funeral, hospital/hospice bills, etc).  Even millionaires and billionaires have this, yes, but the higher your net worth, the less value it has.  If you're worth 9 or 10 figures, you probably already have trust funds set up for your family members, so an extra payout from an insurance policy is probably going to represent a small fraction of the wealth you're leaving your survivors, and as has been noted, insurance makes a profit, so the expectation by the insurance company is that they'll make more money on the policy than they'll have to pay out on death.  That being said, the members of the 9+ figure club I've worked for all had multi-million dollar life insurance policies on them, which were paid for or heavily subsidized by the companies they owned or worked for.  I doubt they would have held those policies if they had to pay the full cost, but when it's free or cheap, why not? Absolutely.  As health insurance in America is an untaxed employment benefit, owing to regulations from World War II, all the wealthy folks I've had contact with got outrageously good plans as part of the companies they work for or owned.  Having said that, even their trust fund beneficiaries held health insurance, because this type of insurance (in America, at least) is actually not really insurance, it's more of a pre-payment plan for medical expenses, and as such, it provides broader access to health care than you'd get from simply having enough money to pay for whatever treatments you need.  If you walk into a hospital as a millionaire and state that you'll definitely be able to pay for your open-heart surgery with cash, you'll get a very different response than if you walk in with your insurance card and your ""diamond-level"" coverage.  So, in this case, it's not as much as about the monetary benefits (although this is a type of ""insurance"" that's generally free or heavily discounted to the individual, so that's a factor) as it is about easier access to health care. Although this is required by law, it's one of the common forms of insurance that the very wealthy can, and often do handle differently than the rest of us.  Most (if not all) US states have a provision to allow motorists to self-insure themselves, which amount to putting up a bond to cover claims against them.  Basically, you deposit the minimum amount the state determines is required for auto insurance with the responsible state organization, get a certificate of self-insurance and you're good to go.  All the high wealth individuals I know when this route, for two reasons - first of all, they didn't have to deal with insurance companies (or pay sky-high rates on account of all the speeding tickets they picked up) and secondly, they made their deposit with government bonds they had in their portfolios anyway, and they could still collect the interest on their self-insurance deposits.  Of course, this meant that if they wrecked or dinged up their Maserati or Bentley or whatever, they'd be out of pocket to repair or replace it... but I guess if you can afford one $200,000 car, you can afford to buy a second one if you wreck it, or get by riding one of your other luxury automobiles instead. Since someone else mentioned kidnapping insurance, I'll point out here that what Robert DeNiro did in Casino when he put a couple million dollars into a safety deposit box for his wife to use if he was kidnapped or needed to pay off a government official is essentially the same thing as ""self-insurance"".  Putting money away somewhere for unexpected events in lieu of buying an insurance policy against them. In real life, the very wealthy will often do this with US treasuries, government bonds and other interest-bearing, safe investments. They make a little money, diversify their portfolios and at the same time, self-insure against a potential big loss. This is another insurance area where even the very wealthy are remarkably similar to the rest of us, in that they all generally have it, yes, although the reason is a little different.  For normal folks, the home they own is generally the largest part of their net worth, or at least a very substantial fraction, for those older folks with retirement savings that exceed the value of their homes.  So for us, we have home owners insurance to prevent a catastrophic event from wiping out the lion's share of our net worth. If you're an ultra-wealthy individual who can afford an 8 figure home, that's not really the case (at least with the ones I've dealt with, who made their fortunes in business and are good managing their wealth and diversifying their assets - could be different for sports stars or the entertainment industry), and these people generally own multiple homes anyway, so it's not as big a deal if they lose one. However, no one actually buys a multi-million dollar home by writing a multi-million dollar check.  They get a mortgage, just like the rest of us.  And to get a mortgage, insurance on the property is a requirement.  So yes, even the ultra wealthy generally have insurance on their home(s).  There is an element of not wanting to shell out another 20 million if the place burns down, or someone breaks in and steals your valuables, but the bigger part of the reason is that it's required to get a mortgage in the first place, which is generally done for financial reasons - interest on your mortgage is a tax deduction, and you don't want to sink millions of dollars all at once into buying a property that's not going to appreciate in value, when you can get a mortgage and invest those millions of dollars to make more money instead." "Losses at a brokerage firm due to fraud are insured up to $500,000 per account for securities  by the SIPC (Securities Investors' Protection Corporation), which is the stock market version of the FDIC (that insures deposits). The protection amount for cash is $250,000. That's small comfort to ""big"" players in MF Global. But it does protect ""small"" investors like you." "An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the ""square root"" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100.  Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%).  Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high." TL; DR : OP (for our purposes) has many years of copyright and history with business name.  Scumbag insurance company start using same name.  OP gets lots of insuance related calls and contact from confused customers.  Scumbag insurance Co. uses Florida legal system, including scumbag judge, to try to screw Good Guy OP.  Sucks.    I upvoted in hopes that some FL lawyer will see it. Contrary to what many people think, credit card companies pass nearly all fraud costs via purchased goods onto the merchant who sells them. As a result, they stand a very high chance of getting the money from a fraudulent purchase of a specific purchased item back, as they just chargeback the merchant who has to stomach the cost. This is not the case for cash transactions obviously, where as soon as the money leaves the ATM fraudulently it is as good as gone. As a result, the risk profile of the two types of transaction is wildly different, and the credit limits of each reflect this. You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases.  They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance.  The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then).  I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts.  I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US.  I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital This person could buy another car at any moment without any money problems, so I don't really see any point in insuring, especially with such a ridiculously high price compared to the extremely low risk. Convenience.  If you self-insure, then an accident means that you have to make arrangements to get the car towed, fixed, evaluated, etc.  If you buy insurance, your insurer would prefer to do all that.  They argue with the mechanic over prices, the lawyer over liability, etc.   And of course, rich people need more liability insurance than other people, not less.  So part of that $1400 is probably money that your friend would have to pay regardless.