Tag Archives: Chrysler

When Incumbents Downplay Disruption…

An unmanned car driven by a search engine company? We’ve seen that movie. It ends with robots harvesting our bodies for energy.

That is a line from a 2011 Chrysler car commercial mocking Google’s self-driving car project.

Another Chrysler commercial was even blunter: “Robots can take our food, our clothes and our homes. But, they will never take our cars.”

Chrysler’s early mocking of Google’s efforts exemplifies the fact that few cling to the status quo tighter than the companies that best understand it and have the most stake in preserving it. It is human nature to value what one does well and look askance at innovations that challenge the assumptions underlying current success. Sprinkle in some predictably irrational wishful thinking and you have the mindset that too quickly dismisses potentially dangerous disruptions.

Ironically, seven years later, those Google “robots” are now mostly driving Chrysler Pacifica minivans. Those robots have taken Chrysler’s cars and driven more than 10 million miles. Chrysler benefits by selling cars to Waymo, the spinoff from that Google project, but not nearly as much as it might have from building the robots themselves. Waymo is valued at $175 billion, about five times Chrysler’s market value.

History brims with other examples.

When Alexander Graham Bell offered to sell his telephone patents to Western Union, the committee evaluating the deal concluded:

Messrs. Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their ‘telephone devices’ in every city. The idea is idiotic on the face of it… This device is inherently of no use to us. We do not recommend its purchase.

Ken Olsen, who disrupted IBM’s mainframe dominance with his DEC minicomputers, mocked the usefulness of personal computers in their early days. He declared, “The personal computer will fall flat on its face in business.” Olsen was very wrong, and DEC would eventually be sold to Compaq Computer, a personal computer maker, for a fraction of its peak value.

See also: Why AI IS All It’s Cracked Up to Be  

Steve Ballmer’s initial ridicule of Apple’s iPhone is also legendary, though the words of the then-CEO of Microsoft were mild compared with the disdain on his face when asked to comment on the iPhone launch.

Years later, after he retired, Ballmer insisted that he was right about the iPhone in the context of mobile phones at the time. What he missed, he admitted, was that the strict separation of hardware, operating system and applications that drove Microsoft’s success in PCs wasn’t going to reproduce itself on mobile phones. Ballmer also didn’t recognize the power of the business model innovation that allowed the iPhone’s high cost to be built into monthly cell phone bills and to be subsidized by mobile operators. (Jump to the 4:00 mark.)

The biggest challenge for successful business executives—like Ballmer, Olsen and those at Western Union—when confronted with potentially disruptive innovations is to think deeply about potential strategic shifts, rather than simply mock innovations for violating current assumptions.

Another perhaps soon-to-be classic example is unfolding at State Farm Insurance.

State Farm released an TV ad that is a thinly veiled attack on Lemonade, a well-funded insurtech startup. Lemonade makes wide use of AI-based chatbots for customer service. State Farm, instead, prides itself on its host of human agents. In the ad, a State Farm agent says:

The budget insurance companies are building these cheap, knockoff robots to compete with us… These bots don’t have the compassion of a real State Farm agent.

As I’ve previously written, AI is one of six information technology trends that is reshaping every information-intensive industry, including insurance. In fact, as I recently told a group of insurance executives, I believe insurance will probably change more in the next 10 to 15 years than it has in the last 300.

See also: Lemonade Really Does Have a Big Heart  

That doesn’t mean that Lemonade’s use of chatbots for customer service will destroy State Farm. But, as State Farm should know, customer-service chatbots are only one of numerous innovations that Lemonade is bringing to the game. As several McKinsey consultants point out, AI-related technologies are driving “seismic tech-driven shifts” in a number of different aspects of insurance. Lemonade has also adopted a mobile-first strategy and is applying behavioral economics to drive other business model innovations.

State Farm executives need to get beyond the mocking and think deeply about how emerging innovations might disrupt their strategic assumptions.

One way to do so is being offered at InsuranceThoughtLeadership.com, where ITL editor-in-chief and industry thought leader Paul Carroll has offered a “State Farm Lemonade Throw Down.” Carroll offers to host an online debate between the two firms’ CEOs about how quickly AI technology should be integrated into interactions with customers.

Lemonade’s CEO, Daniel Schreiber, has accepted. I hope Michael Tipsord, State Farm’s CEO, will accept, as well.

Better for Mr. Tipsord to face the question now, while there is ample time to still out-innovate Lemonade and other startups, than to be left to reflect on what went wrong years later, as Steve Ballmer had to do with the iPhone.

Driverless Vehicles: Brace for Impact

On June 26, Waymo (Google’s autonomous car firm), signed a deal under which Avis Budget Group will provide “fleet support and maintenance services” to Phoenix-area Waymo vehicles. Waymo uses Chrysler Pacifica minivans to autonomously shuttle Phoenix residents around town. Its first fleet of 100 minivans quickly grew into an order for 500 more.

The Waymo/Avis agreement may only be a pilot, but the implications are enormous. Not unlike standard cab companies, Waymo realized that a fleet of autonomous vehicles would need cleaning and maintenance throughout the day and storage throughout the night. When practical matters like auto cleaning and storage become news enough for a press release, something big is going on.

Here are some fun facts:

  • According to USA Today, Avis’ stock rose 14% on the news.
  • The Chrysler Pacifica was chosen, in large part, because it could close its own doors. Waymo usage experts theorized that riders might often hop out and forget to close the door.
  • Within hours of the Waymo announcement, Apple likewise unveiled a deal where Hertz Global would manage its autonomous fleet.

Autonomous vehicles have picked up the pace of disruption over the last two years. What will life be like when the Autonomy of Things takes on many of our everyday behaviors or occupations, like driving? Will we be safer? Will we need insurance? Will auto manufacturers cover accidents via product liability? Who will cover bodily injury or property damage? How will risk products be changed to fit this new model? Is there an insurance right-road to surviving autonomy?

See also: The Evolution in Self-Driving Vehicles  

Is Autonomy Impact Still Underrated?

There has been a lot of talk and certainly a wealth of words written on the impact of auto autonomy, and safety is at the top of the concerns and promises of autonomous vehicles. Insurers are, of course, focused on how autonomous vehicles might cause a decline in the need for auto insurance.

The pace of development, rollout, experimentation and expansion of autonomous vehicles has far exceeded original expectations. In his blog, Peter Diamandis (XPrize Founder) noted that a former Tesla and BMW executive said that self-driving cars would start to kill car ownership in just five years. John Zimmer, the cofounder and president of Lyft, said that car ownership would “all but end” in cities by 2025.

The Wall Street Journal reported in July 2016 that auto insurance represents nearly a third of all premiums for the P&C industry, with projections that 80% could evaporate over the next few decades as autonomous vehicles are introduced, some of them replacing legacy vehicles and some created for shared transportation. At the same time, U.S. government support strengthened in September 2016 when federal auto safety regulators released their first set of guidelines, sending a clear signal to automakers that the door was wide open for driverless cars and betting that the nation’s highways will be safer with more cars driven by machines instead of people.

Those statements, among others, might cause some scrambling. Manufacturers are working frantically to partner with AI providers, cab services and ridesharing services such as Uber, Lyft and Waymo. Naysayers will note that rural areas will be highly unlikely to use autonomous vehicles soon, and it’s true that the largest impact may be in urban areas. But if car ownership were even cut by 5% by 2030, a tremendous number of auto manufacturers and auto insurers would be affected.

Autonomy and its insurance impact isn’t limited to personal autos. Truck company Otto is testing self-driving commercial trucks — a necessary automation that could help alleviate the growing lack of truck drivers. Husqvarna has several models of autonomous lawn mowers on the market. Yara and Rolls Royce are among companies working on autonomous ships. Case, John Deere and Autonomous Tractor Corporation have all been developing driverless tractors.

In nearly every one of these cases, there are safety benefits and disruptive insurance implications, but there are also revenue growth opportunities for those that think more broadly and “outside the box.” From developing partnerships with automotive companies to leveraging the autonomous vehicle data for new services, each offers alternative revenue streams to counter the decline of traditional auto insurance. The key is experimenting with these technologies to find alternative “products and services” and develop an ecosystem of partners to support this, before the competition does.

Share and Transportation as a Service — Insurers May Like

In our report, A New Age of Insurance:  Growth Opportunity for Commercial and Specialty Insurance in a Time of Market Disruption, we cite a report from RethinkX, The Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal-Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries, which says that by 2030 (within 10 years of regulatory approval of autonomous vehicles), 95% of U.S. passenger miles traveled will be served by on-demand autonomous electric vehicles owned by fleets, not individuals, in a new business model called “transport-as-a-service” (TaaS). The report says the approval of autonomous vehicles will unleash a highly competitive market-share grab among existing and new pre-TaaS (ride-hailing) companies in expectation of the outsized rewards of trillions of dollars of market opportunities and network effects.

Welcome to the adolescence of the sharing economy and transportation as a service. Autonomy isn’t the only road for vehicle progress. Vehicle sharing is growing and will remain in vogue for some time. Just as Airbnb and HomeAway have given rise to new insurance products, Zipcar and Getaround and Uber have given rise to new P&C products.

At the same time, a merging of public and private transportation and a pathway to free transportation is in the early stages of being created in the TaaS model. This will shift risk from individuals to commercial entities, governments or other businesses that provide the public transportation, creating commercial lines product opportunities beyond traditional “public transportation.”

Vehicle users, whether they are riders, borrowers, sharers or public entities, are going to need innovative coverage options. Tesla and Volvo may be promising some level of auto coverage for owners of autonomous vehicles, but that kind of blanket coverage is likely to mimic an airline’s coverage of passengers and cargo — it will be limited. Those who lend their vehicle, through a software-based consolidator, such as Getaround, will need coverage that goes beyond their auto policy.

In the past few weeks, we’ve also seen how cyber attacks can undermine freight and shipping, not to mention systems. Nearly all of these service-oriented options will require new types of service-level coverage. Autonomous freight may be safer in transit, but in some ways it may also be less secure.

The lessons appear to be found in brainstorming. Technology is breeding diversity in service use and ownership. There will be new coverage types and new insurance products needed.

See also: Will You Own a Self-Driving Vehicle?  

Up Next … Flying Vehicles

Remember the movie “Back to the Future” and the Jetsons flying cars that were so cool? Well, they are quickly becoming a cool reality. A June 2017 Forbes article says flying cars are moving rapidly from fiction to reality, with the first applications of flying vehicles for recreational activities in the next five years. The article says that, in the past five years, at least eight companies have conducted their first flight tests, and several more are expected to follow suit, indicative of the frenzied activity in this space.

Companies such as PAL-VTerrafugia, AeromobilEhangE-VoloUrban AeronauticsKitty Hawk and Lilium Aviation completed test flights of their flying car prototypes, with PAL-V going further by initiating pre-sales of its Liberty Pioneer model flying car, which the company aims to deliver by the end 2018. This sounds like Tesla and its pre-sales move!

Not to be left behind … ride-sharing companies are aggressively entering the space. Uber launched the Uber Elevate program, with a focus on making flying vehicles transport a reality by bringing together government agencies, vehicle manufacturers and regulators. Google and Skype are entering the space by investing in start-ups: Google in Kitty Hawk and Skype in Lilium Aviation. Not to be left behind, Airbus has unveiled a number of flying car concepts, with plans to launch a personal flying car by 2018. Airbus also plans to build a mass transit flying vehicle…the potential next TaaS option.

So, it pays for insurers to keep their attention on autonomous vehicle trends … because it is more than the personal autonomous vehicle … it is the transformation of the entire transportation industry and will have a significant impact on premium and growth for auto insurers. As we recently found in our commercial and specialty insurance report, the transportation industry is rapidly changing and new technologies may be lending themselves to safety, but the world itself isn’t necessarily growing any safer.

Risk doesn’t end. Insurers will always be helping individuals and companies manage risk. The key will be using the trends to rapidly adapt to a shift to the new digital age. Insurers will need to understand and value new risks and offer innovative products and services that meet the changing needs in this shift during the digital age.

When Will the Driverless Car Arrive?

When Chris Urmson talks about driverless cars, everyone should listen. This has been true throughout his career, but it is especially true now.

Few have had better vantage points on the state of the art and the practical business and engineering challenges of building driverless cars. Urmson has been at the forefront for more than a decade, first as a leading researcher at CMU, then as longtime director of Google’s self-driving car (SDC) program and now as CEO of a driverless car dream team at Aurora Innovation.

Urmson’s recent “Perspectives on Self-Driving Cars” lecture at Carnegie Mellon was particularly interesting because he has had time to absorb the lessons from his long tenure at Google and translate those into his next moves at Aurora. He was also in a thoughtful space at his alma mater, surrounded by mentors, colleagues and students. And, it is early enough in his new startup’s journey that he seemed truly in “perspective” rather than “pitch” mode.

The entire presentation is worth watching. Here are six takeaways:

1. There is a lot more chaos on the road than most recognize.

Much of the carnage due to vehicle accidents is easy to measure. In 2015, in just the U.S., there were 35,092 killed and 2.4 million injured in 6.3 million police-reported vehicle accidents. Urmson estimates, however, that the real accident rate is really between two and 10 times greater.
Over more than two million test miles during his Google tenure, Google’s SDCs were involved in about 25 accidents. Most were not severe enough to warrant a regular police report (they were reported to the California DMV). The accidents mostly looked like this: “Self-driving car does something reasonable. Comes to a stop. Human crashes into it.” Fender bender results.
While we talk a lot about fatalities or police-reported accidents, Urmson said, “there is a lot of property damage and loss that can be cleaned up relatively easily” with driverless technology.
2. Human intent is the fundamental challenge for driverless cars.
The choices made by driverless cars are critically dependent on understanding and matching the expectations of human drivers. This includes both humans in operational control of the cars themselves and human drivers of other cars. For Urmson, the difficulty in doing this is “the heart of the problem” going forward.
To illustrate the “human factors” challenge, Urmson dissected three high-profile accidents. (He cautioned that, in the case of the Uber and Tesla crashes, he had no inside information and was piecing together what probably happened based on public information.)

Google Car Crashes With Bus; Santa Clara Transportation Authority

In the only accident where Google’s SDC was partially at fault, Google’s car was partially blocking the lane of a bus behind it (due to sand bags in its own lane). The car had to decide whether to wait for the bus to pass or merge fully into the lane. The car predicted that the remaining space in the bus’s lane was too narrow and that the bus driver would have to stop. The bus driver looked at the situation and thought “I can make it,” and didn’t stop. The car went. The bus did, too. Crunch.

Uber’s Arizona Rollover

Uber Driverless Car Crashes In Tempe, AZ

The Uber SDC was in the leftmost lane of three lanes. The traffic in the two lanes to its right were stopped due to congested traffic. The Uber car’s lane was clear, so it continued to move at a good pace.

A human driver wanted to turn left across the three lanes. The turning car pulled out in front of the cars in the two stopped lanes. The driver probably could not see across the blocked lanes to the Uber car’s lane and, given the stopped traffic, expected that whatever might be driving down that lane would be moving slower. It pulled into the Uber car’s lane to make the turn, and the result was a sideways parked car.

See also: Who Is Leading in Driverless Cars?  

Tesla’s Deadly Florida Crash

Tesla Car After Fatal Crash in Florida

The driver had been using Tesla’s Autopilot for a long time, and he trusted it—despite Tesla saying, “Don’t trust it.” Tesla user manuals told drivers to keep their hands on the wheel, eyes in front, etc. The vehicle was expecting that the driver was paying attention and would act as the safety check. The driver thought that Autopilot worked well enough on its own. A big truck pulled in front of the car. Autopilot did not see it. The driver did not intervene. Fatal crash.

Tesla, to its credit, has made modifications to improve the car’s understanding about whether the driver is paying attention. To Urmson, however, the crash highlights the fundamental limitation of relying on human attentiveness as the safety mechanism against car inadequacies.

3. Incremental driver assistance systems will not evolve into driverless cars.

Urmson characterized “one of the big open debates” in the driverless car world as between Tesla’s (and other automakers’) vs. Google’s approach. The former’s approach is “let’s just keep on making incremental systems and, one day, we’ll turn around and have a self-driving car.” The latter is “No, no, these are two distinct problems. We need to apply different technologies.”

Urmson is still “fundamentally in the Google camp.” He believes there is a discrete step in the design space when you have to turn your back on human intervention and trust the car will not have anyone to take control. The incremental approach, he argues, will guide developers down a selection of technologies that will limit the ability to bridge over to fully driverless capabilities.

4. Don’t let the “Trolley Car Problem” make the perfect into the enemy of the great.

The “trolley car problem” is a thought experiment that asks how driverless cars should handle no-win, life-threatening scenarios—such as when the only possible choices are between killing the car’s passenger or an innocent bystander. Some argue that driverless cars should not be allowed to make such decisions.

Urmson, on the other hand, described this as an interesting philosophical problem that should not be driving the question of whether to bring the technology to market. To let it do so would be “to let the perfect be the enemy of the great.”

Urmson offered a two-fold pragmatic approach to this ethical dilemma. First, cars should never get into such situations. “If you got there, you’ve screwed up.”  Driverless cars should be conservative, safety-first drivers that can anticipate and avoid such situations. “If you’re paying attention, they don’t just surprise and pop out at you,” he said. Second, if the eventuality arose, a car’s response should be predetermined and explicit. Tell consumers what to expect and let them make the choice. For example, tell consumers that the car will prefer the safety of pedestrians and will put passengers at risk to protect pedestrians. Such an explicit choice is better than what occurs with human drivers, Urmson argues, who react instinctually because there is not enough time to make any judgment at all.

5. The “mad rush” is justified.

Urmson reminisced about the early days when he would talk to automakers and tier 1 suppliers about the Google program and he “literally got laughed at.”  A lot has changed in the last five years, and many of those skeptics have since invested billions in competing approaches.

Urmson points to the interaction between automation, environmental standards, electric vehicles and ride sharing as the driving forces behind the rush toward driverless. (Read more about this virtuous cycle.) Is it justified? He thinks so, and points to one simple equation to support his position:

3 Trillion VMT * $0.10 per mile = $300B per year

In 2016, vehicles in the U.S. traveled about 3.2 trillion miles. If you could bring technology to bear to reduce the cost or increase the quality of those miles and charge 10 cents per mile, that would add up to $300 billion in annual revenue—just in the U.S.

This equation, he points out, is driving the market infatuation with Transportation as a Service (TaaS) business models. The leading contenders in the emerging space, Uber, Lyft and Didi, have a combined market valuation of about $110 billion—roughly equal to the market value of GM, Ford and Chrysler. Urmson predicts that one of these clusters will see its market value double in the next four years. The race is to see who reaps this increased value.

See also: 10 Questions That Reveal AI’s Limits  

6. Deployment will happen “relatively quickly.”

To the inevitable question of “when,” Urmson is very optimistic.  He predicts that self-driving car services will be available in certain communities within the next five years.

You won’t get them everywhere. You certainly are not going to get them in incredibly challenging weather or incredibly challenging cultural regions. But, you’ll see neighborhoods and communities where you’ll be able to call a car, get in it, and it will take you where you want to go.

(Based on recent Waymo announcements, Phoenix seems a likely candidate.)

Then, over the next 20 years, Urmson believes we’ll see a large portion of the transportation infrastructure move over to automation.

Urmson concluded his presentation by calling it an exciting time for roboticists. “It’s a pretty damn good time to be alive. We’re seeing fundamental transformations to the structure of labor and the structure transportation. To be a part of that and have a chance to be involved in it is exciting.”

New Risks Coming From Innovation

The triggers that have induced the insurance industry to innovate have dramatically changed in this millennium. Up until the 21st century, little innovation occurred, because insurers were looking to create products for emerging risks or underinsured risks. Innovation occurred most often as a reaction to claims made by policyholders and their lawyers for losses that underwriters never intended to cover. For example, the early cyber policies, which insured against system failure/downtime or loss of data within automated systems, were created when claims were being made against business owners policies (BOPs) and property policies that had never contemplated these perils. Similarly, some exclusions and endorsements were appended to existing policies to delete or add coverage as a result of claims experience. Occasionally, customer demand led to something new. Rarely was innovation sought as a competency.

Fast forward to today, when insurers are aggressively trying to develop innovative products to increase revenue and market share and to stay relevant to customers of all types. Some examples include: supply chain, expanded cyber, transaction and even reputation coverages.

With sluggish economies, new entrants creating heightened competition, emerging socio-economic trends and technological advances, insurers must innovate more rapidly and profoundly than ever. The good news is that there is movement toward that end. Here is a sampling of the likely spheres in which creativity will show itself.

Space

Insurers have already started to respond to the drone phenomenon with endorsements and policies to cover the property and liability issues that arise with their use. But this is only the tip of iceberg in comparison with the response that will be needed as space travel becomes more commonplace. Elon Musk, entrepreneur and founder of SpaceX, has announced his idea for colonization of Mars via his interplanetary transport system (ITS). “If all goes according to plan, the reusable ITS will help humanity establish a permanent, self-sustaining colony on the Red Planet within the next 50 to 100 years” according to an article this September by Mike Wall at Space.com.

See also: Innovation — or Just Innovative Thinking?  

Consider the new types of coverages that may be needed to make interplanetary space travel viable. All sorts of novel property perils and liability issues will need to be addressed.

Weather

Weather-related covers already exist, but with the likelihood of more extreme climate change there will be demand for many more weather-related products. Customers may need to protect against unprecedented levels of heat, drought, rain/flood and cold that affect the basic course of doing business.

The insurance industry has just taken new steps in involving itself in the flood arena, where until now it has only done so in terms of commercial accounts. Several reinsurers — Swiss Re, Transatlantic Re and Munich Re — have provided reinsurance for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), for example. Insurance trade associations are studying and discussing why primary insurers should do more in terms flood insurance as a result of seeing that such small percentages of homeowners have taken advantage of NFIP’s insurance protection.

Sharing Economy

As a single definition for the sharing economy begins to take shape, suffice it to say that it exists when individual people offer each other products and services without the use of a middleman, save the internet. Whether the product being offered is a used handbag, a piece of art or a room in a private house or whether the service is website design, resume writing or a ride to and from someplace, there are a host of risk issues for both the buyer and seller that are not typically contemplated by the individual and not covered in most personal insurance policies. This is fertile ground for inventive insurers. How can they invent a coverage that is part personal and part commercial? Smart ones will figure out how to package certain protections based on the likely losses that individuals in the sharing economy are facing.

Driverless Cars

So much has already been written about the future of driverless cars, but so many of the answers are still outstanding. How will insurance function during the transition; who will be liable when a driverless car has an accident; who will the customer be; what should the industry be doing to set standards and regulations about these cars and driving of them; how will subrogation be handled; how expensive will repairs be; how will rates be set? A full list of unanswered questions would be pages long. The point for this article is – how innovative will insurers be in finding answers that not only respond to these basic questions but also provide value-added service that customers will be willing to pay for?

See also: Insurance Innovation: No Longer Oxymoron  

The value added is where real innovation comes into play. Something along the lines of Metromile’s offerings for today’s cars is needed, such as helping drivers to find parking or locate their parked cars. Such added value is what might stem the tide of the dramatic premium outflows that are being predicted for insurers once driverless cars are fully phased in.

Corporate Culture and Reputation

Recent events indicate that corporations need some risk transfer when it comes to the effects of major corporate scandals that become public knowledge. The impact from the size and scope of situations such as the Wells Fargo, Chrysler, Volkswagen and other such scandals is huge. Some of the cost involves internal process changes, public relations activities, lost management time, loss of revenue, fines and settlements. Reputation insurance is in its infancy and warrants further development. And though insurance typically does not cover loss from deliberate acts, especially those that are illegal, there is enough gray area in many scandals that some type of insurance product may be practical despite the moral hazard and without condoning illegal behavior.

And the Risk

All innovation poses risk. Risk is uncertainty, and innovation leads to uncertain outcomes. Just as insurers must create solutions, they must be willing to acknowledge risk, assess risk, mitigate risk and prepare for some level of risk to materialize. So, as insurers are now actively trying to innovate, they must make sure that their enterprise risk management practices are up to addressing the risks they are taking.

For each new product, some of these risk areas must be explored:

  • Is there a risk that projections for profitability will be wrong?
  • If wrong, by how much, and how will this shortfall affect strategic goals?
  • What is the risk appetite for this product initiative?
  • What is the risk the new product will not attract customers, making all development costs wasted expense?
  • What is the risk that price per exposure will be incorrectly estimated, hurting profitability?
  • What is the risk for catastrophic or shock losses relative to the product?
  • How will aggregation risk be handled?
  • What is the risk that litigation concerning the policy coverages will result in unintended exposures being covered?

Conclusion

Regardless of whether or not they have been dragged into innovation by disruptive forces, insurers are finally ready to do more than tweak products around the edges. The risk of not innovating appears to be greater than the risk associated with innovating.

How Do We Insure Connected Cars?

Without any doubt, connected cars are one of the most exciting and interesting areas right now, with focus from almost every sector: motor manufacturers, insurance providers, mobile and networks and so much more.

Given the vast number of partnerships, from Apple CarPlay to Spotify to mapping providers and more, the car will be no doubt the most connected device that any of us own. Ten years ago, you jumped into a new car to test drive and wanted to see how it drove, handled and more. Today’s customer jumps in and wants to know: Can I can connect my phone? What apps can I use? And more.

However, and I think this was inevitable for us all – merely a matter of “when,” not “if” — Jeep just got hacked, and with a simple experiment that has demonstrated the catastrophic potential and risk that “connected everything” has. Fiat Chrysler (Jeep) is now recalling 1.4 million cars for an update that needs to be physically delivered — ironic that the update can’t even be delivered over the air, creating a huge cost for Jeep and an even bigger warning to the manufacturers and consumers alike.

That said, there is a good interview here on CNBC with one of the security researchers, where he says he is more afraid of distracted drivers (texting, eating, smoking, etc.) than of hacked cars.

From an insurance perspective, what are the implications here?

  • Do we price connected cars at more expensive rates because of a higher hacking risk?
  • Do we void any policy for motorists who have failed to collect their latest mandated update?
  • Do we need to update our terms and conditions to ensure that it’s the customer’s obligation to make sure her car is running the latest version of software?
  • What happens if you are in an accident with a vehicle that has been hacked? Who owns the risk?

What do you think?