
'Troll insurance' to cover the cost of internet bullying - e15ctr0n
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/insurance/12041832/Troll-insurance-to-cover-the-cost-of-internet-bullying.html
======
Vaskivo
If this could help people like Justine Sacco, Lidsey Stone and Pax Dickinson
get back on their feet it would be great. But I seriously doubt any of them
could predict such a thing could happen to them.

I think a "internet shaming/harrasment recovery program" would be a better
solution.

But, considering it's the internet, I'd really like to know what Chubb will
consider "trolling" and how much of it will make the holder able to claim the
money.

~~~
robotkilla
It seems like fraud would be really hard to prove for a policy like this.

My very first thought is - why wouldn't the policy holder make some anon
accounts and "bully" themselves, lose their "job" (twitch or youtube
broadcaster for example) and claim the money.

~~~
Retra
What makes it harder to prove than any other kind of insurance fraud?

~~~
robotkilla
> What makes it harder to prove

maybe nothing, I'm not overly familiar with the various types of insurance
fraud schemes, but it does seem like masquerading as internet bullies via vpn
and feigning a ruined life would be easier than faking your death, for
example.

------
richmarr
Some insurance background:

The business model for conventional insurers is to take cash from the
investment markets and hold it against their customers risk, gambling that
their customers will on aggregate pay more than they claimed. There's
presently more demand for this type of investment return than there is supply,
so insurers are all scrabbling to find new types of product then try to drum
up demand.

Assuming that's the force in play here expect to see a bit of PR trying to
scare people as to the dangers of online abuse

~~~
patio11
Isn't it in most cases the reverse? My understanding from reading Warren
Buffet's letters for a while is that you take money from customers, try to
keep underwriting losses to neutral or slight (though underwriting
profitability is great), and then _really_ make your returns on time-value-of-
money on the float.

My business holds an E&O policy from USLI, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary. We
pay them $2k a year for the privilege. I think from reading their annual
reports that they earn a slight underwriting profit and make an absolute
killing on holding hundreds of thousands of dollars from other firms for years
before paying it out to the one unlucky winner of the lawsuit lotto.

~~~
300bps
You're correct. Insurance companies have several metrics called loss ratios.
One of these is called the combined ratio and is defined as the sum of
incurred losses and operating expenses measured as a percentage of earned
premium.

A combined ratio of 100 means you've paid out $1.00 in claims and expenses for
every $1.00 brought in as premium. Sounds bad but due to investments made an
insurance company can still be profitable with a combined ratio of 100 or
over.

~~~
richmarr
> A combined ratio of 100 means you've paid out $1.00 in claims and expenses
> for every $1.00 brought in as premium. Sounds bad but due to investments
> made an insurance company can still be profitable with a combined ratio of
> 100 or over.

This is what they'll tell you, but most insurance companies make net revenue
even before investment gains and assuming a combined ratio of 100, because
they don't include the sale of ancilliaries in the combined ratio. If they
sell you car insurance, the basic premium is used to calculate the combined
ratio, any alloy wheel cover, no claims protection, lost key cover, etc are
kept out to make it seem like life as an insurance company is harder than it
really is.

------
kazinator
"Troll insurance" \-- i.e. insurance likely needed _by_ trolls when they are
doxxed.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2015/12/chubb-offers-
uks-f...](http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2015/12/chubb-offers-uks-first-
troll-insurance-policy/), which points to this.

