Insurance Company Sues Website Offering Claim Advice... Saying It's Infringing

from the entitlement-culture dept

Yet another example of "entitlement culture," as companies misuse intellectual property law to try to prop up questionable business models, comes in this latest story, sent in by Jesse. An insurance company in British Columbia, Canada, called ICBC, is suing a website that offers advice on how not to get your insurance claim denied. Obviously, for policy holders, this is useful information. But, to ICBC, it's copyright infringement. Well, at least that's what the article linked above says. I have a hard time seeing how there's a copyright claim here -- especially since the ICBC spokesperson states that they don't have a problem with the content, and that they just have to protect their trademark. So... let's give ICBC the benefit of the doubt and assume the newspaper reporter screwed up, and this is actually a trademark claim rather than a copyright claim (professional reporters for the win, again!). Even so, this would seem like a typical "gripes site" type discussion where, as long as it's clear that the site in question is not run by the company, there shouldn't be any problem. In fact, given that the site provides useful information for ICBC customers, it's difficult to see what the problem is, other than that the insurance company doesn't like its policy holders to learn how to stand up for their rights.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Spammer Discovers His Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover $6 Million Spam Fines

from the just-so-you-know... dept

Scott Richter was a bigtime spammer, who was so proud of being a spammer, at one point he planned to release his own line of "Spamking" clothing (seriously). In 2005, though, he filed for bankruptcy (even though it appeared his spamming operations were still rolling in cash. That same year, there were reports that Richter had actually gone legit and he was actually removed from the infamous ROKSO list of known spammers (not an easy list to get removed from). Except... sometimes it's just difficult to stay away. MySpace sued Richter in 2007 and won a $6 million award against him (though, Richter claimed victory since MySpace wanted much more).

Now, Michael Scott alerts us to the news that Richter tried to have his insurance company pay the fines, but a court has now said that these fines were excluded from the policies, and thus Richter is on the hook for the fines instead. That seems like a good thing. It would be pretty troubling if spammers were able to buy insurance against getting fined.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Insurance Company Snooped On Jurors Insurance Claims During Trial

from the that-seems-bad dept

We've seen it over and over again -- when people have access to large databases of information, it's almost impossible for them to resist the temptation to abuse the info. The latest example comes via Michael Scott, who points us to the news that the Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) was caught checking its own database to examine the claim histories of potential jurors in a trial in which the company was involved. Not surprisingly, this is a massive breach of Canadian privacy laws and also raises questions about the jury itself. The judge in the case is now trying to find out if ICBC has done this in other cases as well. ICBC seems to be bending over backwards to say this won't happen again and that it's put in place safeguards, but it's not clear why it happened in the first place.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anti-Driving-While-Yakking Tech Made Even Better By Adding Big Brother Insurance

from the two-for-one-special-on-things-you-don't-need-or-want dept

Researchers from the University of Utah -- home of our favorite ban-yakking-while-driving research center -- have come up with a new device they say can stop teens from using their phones while driving (via Phone Scoop). The device envelops a car key, and releasing the key to operate the car activates a radio in the device, which the researchers say forces the driver's phone into "driving mode," which only allows calls to 911 and pre-approved numbers, such as the driver's parents. Like earlier, similar ideas, there are a few bugbears: we're unaware of any phone that features such a mode, and it's unclear exactly why it's okay to be distracted by a phone call to one's parents while driving, but not by calls to other people. Singling out teens, when plenty of adults talk on their phones while driving, doesn't seem totally right, but never fear: the company commercializing the technology wants to hook up with insurance companies to use the device as a tool for Big Brother-style surveillance insurance that collects all sorts of data about drivers' behavior, then using the data to calculate insurance rates. While some insurance companies have shown interest in the anti-chatting technology, consumers have shown zero interest in Big Brother insurance, likely relegating this latest idea to the dustbin.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Turns Out Drivers Not So Interested In Big Brother Style Car Insurance

from the please-don't-spy-on-me dept

Four years ago, we wrote about the concept of "Big Brother-style car insurance," where drivers would agree to have special black boxes attached to their cars which would transmit all sorts of info to the insurance company about their driving habits, including how much, when and how fast they drove. Those drivers who drove safer (or at safer "times") were offered better rates. We were actually quite surprised in 2005 to hear the company behind the most intrusive of these programs, Norwich Union in the UK, claim that the early tests were going so well that it was expanding the program. Three years later, we now learn that the "going so well" part may have only been on the insurers' side, rather than the customers' side. In a post talking about why such surveillance insurance plans are a bad, bad idea, the EFF also points out that Norwich Union has just ditched its offering, noting that... well... almost no one signed up. Turns out that people aren't so keen to sign up for Big Brother Brand car insurance after all. The "going well" part was actually all just wishful thinking, as the company says that it thought people would sign up only to discover that they didn't.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

IBM Patents Real-Time Auto Insurance Surcharges

from the fair's-fair dept

theodp writes "Better think twice before volunteering to tutor underprivileged kids or delivering Christmas gifts to homeless children. Thanks to IBM, you could be rewarded with a hefty car insurance premium increase for your efforts. A new patent was issued to Big Blue last Tuesday for its 'invention' of the Location-Based Vehicle Risk Assessment System, which describes how surcharges will be added to your auto insurance premium when a GPS device reports that you drove into an area in IBM's bad neighborhood database (stay too long and your car is disabled). It's all about assigning insurance costs more appropriately, explains Big Blue, which used the same argument to justify punishing employees for having fat kids."

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another Study Shows Red Light Cameras Cause More Accidents And Aren't Needed

from the it's-all-about-the-money dept

Over and over again, we've seen studies that have shown that red light cameras tend to increase, not decrease auto accidents, and certainly don't do much to improve safety. The Agitator points us to yet another study, this time from researchers at the University of South Florida, who again point out that red light cameras tend to increase the number of accidents. The research also points out that accidents from running red lights are rather rare, and it's hardly a problem that requires automation. As for the few studies that have shown better safety from red light cameras, every single one came from a group poised to make money off of the cameras -- and they certainly do make money. It's just unfortunate that it seems to come at the expense of more car accidents, all in the bogus name of public safety. Update: Of course, just after publishing this, I see a story on Engadget about how Dallas has found that red light cameras are effective in preventing red light violations (no word on rear end collisions from people slamming on the brakes however). Yet, here's the irony: because of that, the city gov't doesn't want to install any more, as it's cutting into revenue.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..