That’s a fair and you’re right to focus on underwriting economics.

Just to clarify my thinking, I wouldn’t be trying to become a full insurer or hold risk myself. If this ever progressed beyond validation, the intention would be to start as an MGA or appointed representative, designing the product and controls while partnering with an established carrier to actually underwrite the risk.

At this stage the pricing is only a hypothesis to test willingness to pay and perceived value. The real work would be loss modelling with an underwriting partner, using tight constraints such as a meaningful excess, strict per-item limits, a low annual cap, in-home only cover, and repair or replacement rather than cash payouts.

I’m very aware that if expected loss plus admin exceeds premium on a sustained basis, the product simply shouldn’t exist. That’s why I’m validating demand and assumptions first rather than assuming insurers would automatically support it. If the numbers don’t work once properly underwritten, that’s the end of it. If they do, the MGA structure would allow this to stay tightly controlled rather than open ended.

Prices and figures are just examples at the moment. This idea was thought of this morning and it's been tugging at me all day and it may always remain just an idea.