How Lemonade insurance can save you thousands and support a worthy cause
The Lemonade app is a one-stop shop for all insurance needs, allowing customers to get quotes, manage policies, file claims, and store important documents—all in one place.
Explore insurance options with Lemonade
Traditionally, insurance companies pool the money they receive in premiums, keeping part of it for incoming claims.
The remainder would then be used to run the company and make a profit.
But Lemonade is different; it takes a flat fee from the premiums it receives first to support and scale its business.
The remaining money is then set aside for potential claims and, at the end of the year, whatever is left is donated to charity.
Lemonade lets its customers choose where the money goes from its list of partner charities, which includes everything from animal-rescue operations to climate action groups.
Its contributions have had a tangible impact across the globe.
To date, Lemonade has donated over $12 million, about £8.85 million at the time of writing, to charitable causes.
While Lemonade cannot guarantee donations every year—this depends on whether funds remain after claims are paid—it is a Certified B Corporation (B Corp).
What insurance does Lemonade offer?
Lemonade now offers home and contents insurance across the UK.
Buildings insurance, which covers damage to the structure of a property, starts at just £14 a month. This type of cover can even be unlimited, providing peace of mind for homeowners. Optional add-ons include accidental damage and home emergency cover.
Contents insurance, starting at £4 a month, is designed for both homeowners and tenants. It protects personal belongings within the home, with basic policies covering up to £2,000 worth of items. Comprehensive plans extend this coverage to £20,000.
You can also get cover for items such as mobile phones, ensuring customers are protected wherever they go.
By combining technology, transparency, and a commitment to social good, the company is redefining what it means to be an insurer.
A modern, digital experience
Explore insurance options with Lemonade
LEARN MORE
Lemonade isn't just revolutionising its business model; it's also transforming the way it interacts with customers.
The fully digital insurer is easy to use thanks to its award-winning app, so there's no paperwork or long phone calls.
You can make claims quickly through the app, and simple claims can be paid out instantly.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), for example, plays a key role in handling customer claims, and when logging a claim, AI runs dozens of anti-fraudulent checks to validate the claim.
If successful, it instantly pays out, and if not, it is referred to a human team.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I drove across Europe in an EV – it was cost-effective & relaxing… but there were lessons learned along the way
A FOOTBALL fan went on the trip of a lifetime across Europe in an electric vehicle to watch England bring it home at the recent Women's Euros final. Footy-mad Liv Cooper was determined to reach the tournament's showpiece at St. Jakob-Park in Basel, Switzerland, by travelling the 1,602-mile round trip from her home in Manchester - all in an EV. 5 5 In an exclusive chat with Sun Motors, Liv explained she wanted to challenge herself to reach the match as sustainably and cost-effectively as possible, while testing the limits of long-distance EV travel. Taking to the open road in a Volkswagen ID.7, Liv was impressed by the car's comfort and smooth performance, while making use of OVO's Charge app to plan her charging stops with live updates and availability. 'The Volkswagen ID.7 really impressed me - it felt more like gliding than driving,' Liv said. 'It was smooth, silent and seriously comfortable over long distances. The range was solid, and with a bit of planning, it didn't feel limiting at all.' Liv was also surprised by how affordable the trip was in an EV, especially with the costs split between herself and a companion. 'The savings were noticeable,' she said. 'Charging costs split between two people were significantly cheaper than flying, even at the fast-charging rates. 'With the efficiency of the car, we didn't need to stop constantly to recharge, so I was surprised at how little it cost for the full journey.' However, Liv admits the trip wasn't all smooth sailing. Range anxiety - the worry that an EV's battery will run out of charge before reaching a destination or charging station - was an issue at times, particularly in rural areas. 'There were a couple of moments where I was keeping a close eye on the battery, especially in more rural areas,' she said. 'Having a good route plan and using OVO's reliable Charge app made all the difference. 'We made sure to check where we could charge before setting off, which meant we could stay flexible with our journey. We also topped up whenever possible if we knew we had a longer leg ahead.' Liv also encountered slower-than-expected chargers and some European stations that didn't accept UK payment methods or had poor signal for loading the app. 'On the downside, the charging infrastructure in some areas of Europe still needs work,' Liv said. 'We found a lot didn't take UK cards or Apple Pay, although if you're using the OVO Charge app, you don't have this problem. 'Some of the service stations also had bad signal, so it sometimes took a while to get the app to load. 'But overall, the positives far outweighed the negatives - the fast chargers were quick and provided a nice break, it's a more comfortable ride, and it's better for the planet.' Liv says the trip has changed her perspective on EV ownership. 'I used to think EVs were mostly for city driving, but this trip changed that,' she said. 'With the right car and a bit of prep, long-distance EV travel is actually really enjoyable.' She also says it made arriving in Switzerland for the final in such a sustainable way all the more rewarding. Liv said: 'It felt empowering to travel in an EV to the Women's Euros final. 'Football is all about passion and community, and arriving in a way that aligned with my values made it even more meaningful. 'We all talk about supporting the game we love, but making more sustainable choices is one way we can support the planet too and I'm certain it's going to be spoken a lot more about in football more generally over the next couple of years.' 5 5
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ignorant government plans to tax bookies more could destroy racing
Tax the bookmakers more. It's a policy sure to garner public support, isn't it? The problem is not the idea of taxing the betting industry at a higher level, it is the way that the government is proposing to do it. It is not far-fetched to say that the changes, if introduced in the autumn statement, could be the death knell for horse racing in Britain. The government needs cash and the bookmakers are a soft target. The idea is to harmonise tax on bookmakers' profits on all their income streams. At the moment there is a division between tax paid on online casino profits (21 per cent goes to the government) and sports/racing betting (paid at 15 per cent). The suggestion is to charge 21 per cent across the board. There are exceptions, such as George Freeman (Conservative, Mid Norfolk) and Sally Jameson (Labour, Doncaster Central), but many MPs do not appear to understand the differences between betting on sports, which involves an element of skill, compared with casino betting, where bookmakers cannot lose. They also appear to be oblivious of the damage it will do to the racing industry, which provides jobs for 85,000 people. A further 10 per cent of bookmakers' profits from bets placed on horse racing are paid back to the sport. This levy came into force when betting shops were legalised in 1961 as a means to help fund the sport. It was introduced to combat the fact that fewer people would go racing once off-course betting was permitted, while also recognising the symbiotic relationship of the racing and betting industries. As a result, though, betting on racing is less profitable for bookmakers, making them keen to push punters towards higher-margin products, with online casinos being top of their list. The reason that racing will be badly hit by the proposed tax changes is that it will make bookmakers even less keen to promote betting on the sport, which provides the lifeblood of the industry. Modelling commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority suggested that increasing tax on betting on racing to 21 per cent, to level it up with betting on online casinos, would cost the sport £66million a year in lost income from levy, media rights and sponsorship. That would be ruinous for a sport that is already struggling. A hike in tax on online casino betting would make more sense and could generate the same level of revenue for the government. There is zero skill in betting on online casinos — bookmakers take a fixed margin, set by themselves, on a product on which they literally cannot lose in the long run. A higher level of tax on online casinos would have the added bonus of discouraging bookmakers from promoting a product that causes the majority of problem gambling. The Gambling Commission has already inflicted damage to racing's finances. In 2023 it produced a white paper suggesting that bookmakers should 'check for financial vulnerability' if a gambler lost either £125 in a month or £500 in a year. Bookmakers saw the proposals and, keen to avoid being hit with large fines, started making intrusive checks on their customers' financial situations to the extent that many punters now use offshore gambling companies that provide no income for racing or the government purse. The latter point is not hearsay — betting on racing has dropped 16 per cent in three years and polling carried out by YouGov for the Betting and Gaming Council recently found that 14 per cent of punters admitted to gambling on a black-market site. The public, many of whom are only cognisant of the biggest events, will perhaps believe that racing is a wealthy sport that can well afford the hit. That is a misconception. Flat racing in Britain has been kept competitive at an international level by the largesse of wealthy foreign owners, primarily from the Middle East. Even so, it is struggling at the top end, with prize money that compares badly with other leading racing nations. Much of the best bloodstock that is bred in Britain has been heading overseas for some time and it is now approaching a tipping point where British breeders will not be able to compete with similar operations abroad. Prize money at the bottom level is so poor that a horse can win eight races in a year and still not cover its costs. The vast majority of trainers and jockeys are struggling to make a living. The effects of overtaxing racing can be seen from recent events in India. In 2017 the government introduced a goods and services tax on money bet on racing at a rate of 28 per cent. Punters paid the price and as their returns dwindled many turned to illegal bookmakers who paid no tax. Government revenues from racing more than halved in five years. British racing has been revered throughout the world for decades. Its history has maintained its place in the minds of leading owners but the point is fast approaching where that is no longer the case. If the sport is to continue to provide work for so many, and continue to attract inward investment to the UK, the government needs to rethink its proposed tax changes.
