Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How so? Having your defense funded doesn't guarantee you immunity or a "not guilty" verdict. Where's the moral hazard?



In short, people would take out the insurance right before they commit a crime so they didn't have to pay for their own defense. It doesn't guarantee a verdict, but if you've decided you're going to go to trial anyway, you might as well take out the insurance, and I don't see how the insurance company could survive in that environment, since the principle of insurance is that most people won't need it.


The service exists, and presumably is profitable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_expenses_insurance

To address your comment in detail:

1)>>>In short, people would take out the insurance right before they commit a crime so they didn't have to pay for their own defense.

2)>>>I don't see how the insurance company could survive in that environment, since the principle of insurance is that most people won't need it.

Point 1: Require the insurance to be delayed: you must pay into the insurance for X number of years before it can be used. In this case, "right before they commit a crime" will end up being long enough to recoup the costs of the defense. An actuary can help find what number of years is needed for the specific business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary

Point 2: All insurance companies are faced with the challenge of survival. They often overcome this challenge by increasing their pool of customers: "most people won't need it" and are profit centers, the few who do need it are the cost centers. Again, actuaries are the folks to call.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: