Insurance Fraud Facts

[C-Kwik]

I was just clearing out some email and came across something I had sent myself from work. Just a few interesting facts:

45 Fraud Facts and Figures Insurance Fraud would rank in the top 25 of the Fortune 500 and be called a growth industry. NICB 10 to 30 percent of all PROPERTY-CASUALTY claims are either inflated or outright fraudulent. NICB Industry pays some $18 Billion yearly in phony claims. NICB 15% of all AUTO claims are fraudulent. NICB A vehicle is stolen every 19 seconds in this country, adding up to over 1.5 million a year. The thefts cost Americans over $8 Billion annually. NICB

$16.44 of $100.00 in AUTO claims paid goes to pay fraudulent claims. NICB Fraud in California cost policyholders $500 Million each year. California Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi 15% to 20% of all California AUTO insurance claims are believed to be phony. California Insurance Commissioner, John Garamendi

Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts says 11% of BODILY INJURY AUTO insurance claims were fraudulent and another 29% were padded.

Insurance Research Council Roper Poll shows that 28% of those people interviewed by the pollsters believe it is acceptable to pad an insurance claim to make up for collision deductibles.

IRC Roper Poll indicates that 20% of the interviewed people approve of padding a claim to get back money paid in premiums.

National cost of VEHICLE THEFT is $8 Billion annually. NICB Hurricane Andrew...the worst U.S. catastrophe in modern history. Cost of the hurricane 25 to 30 Billion Dollars. Insurance Fraud...Fortune 500 Company, Cost 25 to 30 Billion Dollars per year. Cost to each household per year, $400.00. Insurance Fraud Disaster NICB (estimated)

Property and Casualty Fraud each year $20 Billion Hurricane Andrew 1992 $25 Billion Oakland Fire 1991 $ 4 Billion Blizzard of 1993 $ 2 Billion Los Angeles Riots 1992 $ 1 Billion Fraud Cost Breakdown

$95 Billion in Health Care $20 Billion in Property & Casualty $ 5 Billion in Life & Disability $120 Billion per year for our industry Why will Insurance Fraud increase? Conning Insurance Fraud Survey

Economic Pressures Weakening of Society's Values Inadequate Training of Insurance Company Personnel Most Effective Ways to Reduce Insurance Fraud. Conning Insurance Fraud Survey

Special Investigation Units 47% Aggressive Fraud Prosecution 21% Public Awareness 15% State Fraud Bureaus (Remaining % Below) All-Claims Database Greater Immunity for Reporting Insurance Fraud Tougher Laws and Stiffer Penalties Work Closer with Law Enforcement Create Interactive Computer Expert Systems to Detect Fraud Upper Management Support Educate Top Management on the Problem and Methods of Prevention Lines of Insurance Business Where Fraud is Most Likely to Occur. Conning Insurance Fraud Survey

Workers' Compensation Auto Medicare/Medicaid Property Disability Health/PPO HMOs/POS Life 36% of all Bodily Injury Claims associated with CAR crashes appear to involve some element of Fraud. Insurance Research Council

Of the 36% of Bodily Injury Claims 3 out of 100 involve premeditated criminal acts such as fake or staged accidents. Insurance Research Council

Consumer fraud associated with mortgages, credit/debit cards and insurance reached $152 Billion in 1996. Nearly 80% of that amount, or $120 Billion, is credited to Property and Casualty, Workers' Compensation and Health Insurers. Meridian Research Inc.

$3.1 Million to 18.6 Million per hour. The amount of money spent on fraudulent HealthCare claims. National Healthcare Anti-Fraud Association

Only 7% of suspected opportunistic fraud claims resulted in an SIU referral from Claims. 1996 IRC study of closed customer claims.

Improved resistance by claims, to opportunistic fraud claims, could reduce overall claim losses by 5 to 10%. 1996 IRC study of closed customer claims.

9 out 10 people in a 1997 Coalition Against Insurance Fraud survey believe insurance rates are higher as a result of fraud.

6 out of 10 people believe that people who commit fraud are only looking for a fair return on premium paid. 1997 Coalition Against Insurance Fraud Survey

Possible reasons for committing insurance fraud: 1997 Coalition Against Insurance Fraud Survey

To save money or reduce costs To get expensive work done they would not otherwise be able to afford Get back at insurance companies who some perceived are more interested in making a profit than providing good service, and who some perceived as a faceless institution Deterrents for not wanting to report insurance fraud: 1997 CAIF Survey

Not wanting to get involved because it was none of their business Fear for their safety Not knowing extenuating circumstances that may have led to the act No injury to anyone Not wanting to report a friend or relative Don't think fraud is serious or wrong, everyone does it and it is acceptable Reasons for not committing insurance fraud: 1997 CAIF Survey

Strong sense of right and wrong Fear of getting caught 20 cents of every dollar an employer pays for Workers' Compensation ends up in a lawyer's pocket. Forbes, March 15, 1995

The $75,000,000,000 annually in fraud and abuse is enough to provide all the health care coverage all Americans need. USA Today, March 12, 1992

33 states currently have active Workers' Compensation fraud units, many of them geared to fighting claimant fraud. More than half of the states have passed legislation on Workers' Compensation, with most of these laws directed at claimants.

One estimate in California suggests that fraud by employees accounted for 25% of all Workers' Compensation costs and 10% of the state's claims. Gary T. Schwartz, Waste, Fraud and Abuse in Workers' Compensation

10 to 30 cents of every claim dollar paid goes toward to a fraudulent claim Pictorial Ed. 10% of all Workers' Compensation claims contain some element of fraud, costing the insurance industry $5 billion annually NICB

Nearly 10% of U.S. adults say it's okay for someone injured at home to claim their injury is work-related in order to collect workers' compensation benefits. Insurance Research Council

Approximately 17% of U.S. adults say it's okay to cooperate with lawyers, doctors or chiropractors to file false or exaggerated workers' compensation claims to get money from insurers. Insurance Research Council

Most common Workers' Compensation schemes today are: - NICB

Cooperating with dishonest professionals to collect benefits for exaggerated or non-existent injuries Working a second job while collecting benefits from another employer Claiming a non-work related injury was sustained on-the-job to collect benefits Fraudulent claims by line of business - Pictorial Ed

30% of all Property Claims contain elements of fraud 25% of all Workers' Comp claims contain elements of fraud 20% of all Auto Claims contain elements of fraud. Definition of Fraud. An act of deceiving or misrepresenting, theft by deception or acting with reckless indifference to the truth.

The Act of Insurance Fraud - Pictorial Ed.

When someone deliberately lies. The intent of the lie is for someone else to rely on that lie. The other person relies on that lie. As a result of the lie, damages are suffered by the person who relied on that lie. Exported Stolen Vehicles Foreign Hot Spots - NICB

Middle East: BMW, Lincoln Towncar, Cadillac Eastern Europe: Oldsmobile, Harley-Davidson, Mercedes, Jaguar Australia/Pacific Rim: Porsche, Lexus, Mercedes Central/South America: Ford Explorer, Nissan Pathfinder

[BoyWonder]

Pretty interesting stuff.

[Secret Agent]

I'd be interested in seeing the corresponding statistics on how much insurance companies ripoff their customers.

[C-Kwik]

Before you start spreading negative facts, keep in mind that a company with a good combined ratio(operating expense plus claim payments) is somewhere around 98%. That means they make a 2% profit for every dollar. The reality is that most companies do not consistently make that kind of combined ratio. In fact, some run beyond 100%. The only way they end up making any profit is to invest the premiums that are not used yet. Lets be fair now. Insurance companies are in business to make money like any other business. If they do not make a profit, well guess what, they go out of business. I find that most people who complain about insurance tend to be those who want more than what they are owed. Or, they pay a rather high premium, but really is not the insurance companies fault they are considered a higher risk. Each person certainly has a choice not to drive and not to have insurance. You can take a bus, or risk driving with no insurance. Noone is forcing you to pay premiums. Driving is a priveledge, not a right.

[NIGHTfall_240sx]

I'd be interested in seeing the corresponding statistics on how much insurance companies ripoff their customers.

just look at me.... 18 male 5spd s14

1 accident and a ticket for it1 careless rolled a stop sign at low low speed (like barly moving )and 1 under 10 speeding

i pay nearly 4,000 a year using my moms insurence!!!

on my own them jerk offs wanted 8,000 a year WTF MATE ?

[gabossie]

I only pay around 2k a year for full coverage on my S14 on my parents insurance. I have no tickets or anything though, although that's about to shoot through the roof as I got a DUI Damn Cali zero tollerance laws, get a dui when I'm not even intoxicated.

[Secret Agent]

A friend died in an accident two years ago (his fault). His wife is still waiting for the death benefits that were included with the vehicle insurance.

Going to court would be slow and expensive, so she must wait until the insurance company decides to pay out (if ever).

They won't hesitate to screw you if they think they can get away with it.

[C-Kwik]

Uhh? You may have a bad case. But I work in the industry. As with anything, a few bad experiences tend to make people stereotype about what actually goes on. I handle over a thousand claims anually. I doubt I could handle that many people screaming at me to pay them money that I should be paying. Think about it. It's not that bad claims do not exist. But you really can't judge an industry by one claim. Nor can you make any real judgement without hearing both sides of any story.

[BadMojo]

just look at me.... 18 male 5spd s14

i pay nearly 4,000 a year using my moms insurence!!!

on my own them jerk offs wanted 8,000 a year WTF MATE ?

Think about it...you've been driving for maybe 24 months and you've got 2 moving violations and an accident already? Those aren't real good numbers. You're lucky you still have insurance.

[C-Kwik]

I only pay around 2k a year for full coverage on my S14 on my parents insurance. I have no tickets or anything though, although that's about to shoot through the roof as I got a DUI Damn Cali zero tollerance laws, get a dui when I'm not even intoxicated.

You have noone to blame but yourself. You should know this law. So if you drank while underage, it's your fault for making that choice.

[C-Kwik]

just look at me.... 18 male 5spd s14

1 accident and a ticket for it1 careless rolled a stop sign at low low speed (like barly moving )and 1 under 10 speeding

i pay nearly 4,000 a year using my moms insurence!!!

on my own them jerk offs wanted 8,000 a year WTF MATE ?

I won't argue that that rate isn't high. But every insurance company has different rate schedules that are based largely on what kind of business they want to insure. Most companies obviously want to reduce exposure to risk. But there are companies out there that cater towrds the needs of a higher risk driver. They may put more limitations on the policy, but their rates might be a little more reasonable. Shop around. You might be surprised what you'll find. When I was 18, I had 6 tickets in one year, one of which was driving on a suspended license. When I got my license back, I paid a little under $3,000 a year through a sub-standard carrier. But I'm in Cali, so I don't know if there are different underwriting risks for your state. IIRC, I did get a quote for some $3000+ every 6 months though a premiere company. The agent who gave me the quote even told me to sit down first. Thinking back, I was surprised they would even write the risk.

[Secret Agent]

C-Kwik: I'll agree that the majority of claims are handled well by the insurance companies.

On the other hand, most insurance claims are legitimate. The point of my original post was that the insurance companies are quick to sling mud, which they have plenty of 'cause they are knee deep in it.

For personal injury claims, what percentage of the time do the insurance companies stall in the hopes that the claimant will be in dire straits and have to accept a lowball offer? I wouldn't be surprised if it is higher than the 15% rate of fraudulent claims.

[C-Kwik]

Doubtful that any insurance company would intentionally stall a claim. Statistics show that the longer a claim stays open, the more expensive it becomes. An adjuster would go absolutely mad trying to keep up with a desk like that as well. Not to mention that claims continue to be assigned to adjuster's daily.

Most Departments of Insurance require a status letter every 30 days or so, even to a 3rd party to advise them if anything is needed to complete evaluation of a claim. Injury claims, depending on the severity can take some time, just from the fact that the injured party typically has to finish treating in order to properly evaluate the claim. No insurance company has control over that.

I'd find it doubtful that an insurance company will lowball someone intentionally. But if the insurance company and the claimant can't agree, then the claimant will likely be quick to judge and say that they are being lowballed. If that is the case, then it should go to court or some other form of mediation to perhaps be resolved or decided. The problem is, that claimants never look at themselves as a person that may have the wrong expectations as to what a fair settlement might be. It can go either way, but consumers are always quick to judge that the insurance company is the bad guy. Certainly, insurance companies can look great if they paid everything consumers wanted, even if it was unreasonable. But then they would complain that their rates are too high(not that they don't already). There is a much bigger picture here to think about that most poeople rarely do and rarely will ever think about. And most people say bad things about insurance based on things they hear and not what they experience. If it's one thng I've learned from investigating claims is that you always try to look at both sides of the argument and to think about not only what someone tells you, but also what someone does not. Very few people actually like to admit when they've done something wrong. So if they are telling you about a bad experience, do you really think they will admit or tell you something that would make themselves look bad?

I'm not saying insurance companies or claims adjusters are perfect. They are human as everyone else. They can make mistakes and sometimes poor judgements. But I highly doubt as an industry that there are any measurable amount of adjusters that actually try to handle claims unreasonably.

[hudy]

What are the highest priced States(citiies) to live in CKwik?

[BadMojo]

What are the highest priced States(citiies) to live in CKwik?

I'm not C-Kwik, but the highest rates I've consistently seen have been in New Jersey. The state has rampant fraud and uninsured motorist problems, and it really shows.

I also work in insurance. I don't think people realize how highly regulated the insurance industry is. Any company that isn't handling claims in a professional and timely manner is going to have problems. State Departments of Insurance routinely investigate insurance companies' business practices, and they are generally very pro-consumer.

[Bunta240]

Mine is 4k under my parents and I havnt had anything wrong on my record. They hate me cause im young. And this is with good student...

[C-Kwik]

What are the highest priced States(citiies) to live in CKwik?

You might want to search on the internet on that one. I don't keep track of rates. And I don't come across many policies that originate outside of California.

[hudy]

Cool, thought I'd ask anyhow. How long have you been in the ins. industry?

[C-Kwik]

I'm not C-Kwik, but the highest rates I've consistently seen have been in New Jersey. The state has rampant fraud and uninsured motorist problems, and it really shows.

I also work in insurance. I don't think people realize how highly regulated the insurance industry is. Any company that isn't handling claims in a professional and timely manner is going to have problems. State Departments of Insurance routinely investigate insurance companies' business practices, and they are generally very pro-consumer.

"I'm not C-Kwik" Isn't that obvious? :pface

I'm not sure that uninsured motorists are not a problem for any state. California has a lot of it due to the fact that most illegal immigrants from Mexico can't get a license, so they can't get insurance. Sometimes I wonder how they even get a car.

The Department of Insurance also does a regular audit. They also request full copies of claim files when a complaint is sent to them by a consumer. They don't make decisions for the insurer's, but they do make sure that all regulations are followed. The fines for non-compliance are expensive.

[BadMojo]

"I'm not C-Kwik" Isn't that obvious? :pface

I have some identity issues.

Quote » I'm not sure that uninsured motorists are not a problem for any state. California has a lot of it due to the fact that most illegal immigrants from Mexico can't get a license, so they can't get insurance. Sometimes I wonder how they even get a car.[/quote]Yeah, off the top of my head I'd say NY, NJ and CA all have *extreme* issues with uninsured motorists. As you say, it's a problem in every state, but I think those three are particularly problematic. It's a tough situation.

People buy cars and can't afford insurance.

They drive uninsured and get in to accidents. Insurance companies pay tons of UM claims, so rates go up and people still can't afford insurance. The circle of Uninsured Motoring is complete!

Quote »The Department of Insurance also does a regular audit. They also request full copies of claim files when a complaint is sent to them by a consumer. They don't make decisions for the insurer's, but they do make sure that all regulations are followed. The fines for non-compliance are expensive. [/quote]Yeah...I've been through a few Market Conduct Exams. They're nerve wracking and *very* comprehensive. They go on seemingly forever and just when one state's audit ends, another begins.

[NIGHTfall_240sx]

Think about it...you've been driving for maybe 24 months and you've got 2 moving violations and an accident already? Those aren't real good numbers. You're lucky you still have insurance.

i forgot to mention they wanted 8K a year for MIN corverage.... im paying a lil over 4K a year and thats also min.

[C-Kwik]

Ouch. That's a lot. But you still always have the choice of not driving. Or shopping around for a lower rate. Independent brokers are usually a good reference in this case as they sell policies for several carriers and can find one that suits your budget better.

[C-Kwik]

Oh, and just so you know, I've actually seen a policy for a WRX for a 19 year old kid with a not-so-good record. $5000 every 6 months. That's more money than I made in a year when I was 19.

[BadMojo]

Oh, and just so you know, I've actually seen a policy for a WRX for a 19 year old kid with a not-so-good record. $5000 every 6 months. That's more money than I made in a year when I was 19.

Me too. I guess that begs the question, how does a 19 year old afford a WRX?

[C-Kwik]

I'd give you two guesses, but you probably only need one...

[yashin]

You know what, insurance companies are the most heartless, evil, and disgusting companies in the world.

They will go to absolutley any lengths to screw anybody over. T

If there wasn't fraud they would still be charging you an arm an a leg for insurance. They don't care at all. They have no sense of customer loyalty and don't give two ****s about anybody but themselves.

They take something that is an essential part of life and gauge people as much as they can. Sure all business have problems but do you see stores charging 20 dollars for a loaf of bread?

I'm not only talking about car insurance, but all forms of insurance. One of the worst is house insurance. If you make more than 2 claims on your house (even if theya are legitamte) you are pretty much assured that your insurance will be cancelled, at that point you become blackballed by all insurance companies and will not be able to get insurance.

Essentially insurance companies fine you for using their services.

The only way that things will change is if there is public insurance. In several provinces that have public auto insurance the rates are unbelivably low.

I've known 20 year olds with a 240s that pay 1000 dollars a year for full coverage. Whereas I pay 3000 dollars a year for one way coverage.

If it was up to me, I would line up all the owners of insurance companies and have them slowly executed.

[Phax]

For personal injury claims, what percentage of the time do the insurance companies stall in the hopes that the claimant will be in dire straits and have to accept a lowball offer? I wouldn't be surprised if it is higher than the 15% rate of fraudulent claims.

From the experiences I have had with insurance company, and those which my friends have had, I get the sense that it is just the opposite. In insurance companies try to get you to accept their first offer as quickly as possible. Being in dire straights puts you at their mercy. You need a car, you need money, there fore you're more likely to settle for the first number that they throw at you.

As C-Kwik has said, insurance companies are in it to make money. They are ruthless about it too. Unless you are willing to take them to court, they will pay you the very least that they can get away with. Granted, that is a generality. I have had good experience with State Farm. The thing is, I have had all too many bad experiences with companies that are not State Farm. And, State Farm charges more than most other companies out there. Because of that, they can afford to treat their customers better.

[C-Kwik]

I don't blame you for thinking this way. But you still need to look at the bigger picture. Insurance companies are in business to make money. They are under no obligation to have to insure you(with the exception of fair plans or their equivalents where they exist). No business will want to write a bad risk. Homeowners is a sensetive issue. Mold has become a rather large and costly issue. Mold is still a relatively new type of issue for insurance companies. While it has been around since before houses were even built, it is only recently that it has grabbed so much attention. Not all mold is necessarily harmful to people nor are all people sensetive to all types of mold. It can depend on the quantity as well. Unfortunately, since it is not fully understood yet, and guidelines are still vague at best, there is no single answer in how to handle each type of loss. Homeowners can tend to overreact. The legal issues involved can force an insurance company to have to pay more for mold remediation where 10 years ago the same loss would not have required it. I'm not trying to say mold is harmless, but the mere fact that it has become such a large issue has wreaked havoc on the property insurance industry. Not to mention that most people do not have property losses very often. So few know what can happen if not handled properly. This is most apparent with water damage losses. Most people will call in large ones. But smaller ones where only a small amount of water was visible tend not to be called in. Most will be able to clean up water that on tile or on the carpet. But what about water that gets into the walls? drywall can wick water up pretty quickly. And with the visible surface having paint to act as a barrier and the inside surface having to air circulation, do you think it will effectively dry out? Or what about carpet> Sure, a steam cleaning device can suck water out of the fibers. But what about the pad underneath? Carpet has a layer of lamination that resists water to some extent. And pad are basically like sponges. They hold water very well. Wood floors? wood absorbs water. Wood floors tend to have a finish on the top layer. This does not let wood breath very well. Consider this is only a few ways water can get trapped. Trapped water, time and a food source is all mold needs to grow. Leave anything like this long enough and mold will grow. Unfortunately, since many homeowners are become more concerned with reporting a claim in the first place, they tend not to at first. They clean up what they can see and the insurance company has no way of letting them know that these kind of things can happen. Very few homeowners know enough to get an expert with moisture measurement devices out to check. So what happens? The water sits and causes drywall to crumble, carpet to delaminate, and wood floors to buckle. And in some cases, we get mold. And keep in mind if acted upon quickly, these types of damages can generally be minimized.

Another factor here is that existing houses are getting older. Homes aren't going to last forever. Especially when not maintained. Roofs and pipes wear out. Many old houses that use galvanized piping are going to see much corrosion. So if a known condition exists, would it be a good idea for an insurance company to write that risk? Galvanized piping is actually a good example of this. Pipe leaks are already one of the most common homeowner losses. If a house with 50 year old piping has a water loss due to a corroded pipe. Chances are that's not the only part of the plumbing system that is corroded. So one would probably expect there will probably be another water loss in the future. Is it a good idea to write a risk you know you will have to pay out on? It's like betting against a black jack. But if the homeowner has new piping done throughout the house, their risk would change significantly. This does not preclude newer homes from this either. Copper pipes, as durable as they are have weaknesses too. Improper installation under concrete slabs have caused problems. They have to wrap the pipe in a plastic barrier as concrete carries a chemical that corrodes copper pipes. A pipe leak occurs, the slab is opened up to fix it and the pipe is repaired. The concrete is patched back up and a week later, another water loss occurs on the same pipe near the same area. You fix it again, but then another loss occurs. Why? The integrity of the pipe is marginal. The whole pipe has issues due to the poor installation. Having to jackhammer the concrete to access the broken pipe only makes matters worse. So the choice is usually to have the pipe re-routed. But if an insurance company sees a lot of losses like this on the same house, or even a tract of houses, it would be bad business to write the risk there.

As I've stated before, there are always 2 sides to any story. While I hold no expectation for consumers to understand everything that goes on behind the scene, it always seems to disturb me how so many people are quick to judge. And this is not even just with insurance.

Insurance companies don't fine you. If they were to cancel you, they are no longer collecting a premium from you. But if the cost of paying claims on your home is going to continually be more than they can take in, then they need to make a business decision. And I'll tell you, for a little while now, it's been difficult for most insurance companies to make any profit in property. Some companies pulled out of that line of business completely, while others pull out in certain states.

As far as public insurance, I am aware it exists in at least B.C. I know a guy who used to adjust claims for them. I've talked to him about this but not in great detail. I can see some benefits to it, but I believe they only provide certain basic coverages which is then supplemented by private firms. And I doubt it would solve this problem. If they or any insurance company was forced to write every risk, including bad ones, then premiums would have to be increased. The money used to pay claims doesn't grow on the proverbial tree. It is money we put in when we pay premiums to pool out money with other insureds to collectively pay claims.

Keep in mind insurance provides benefits that most people will ever realize. In fact life would be very different today without insurance. Doctors would not want to treat people for anything for fear of having to pay or defend suits out of their own pockets. Drug companies wouldn't want to release anything for fear of getting sued(Phen-Fen anyone?). Businesses may not offer services for fear if they damage something in the process and get sued. Contractors would not want to fix or build a home for fear of getting sued for faulty workmanship(construction defect claims are VERY expensive to handle). But if you think about it, we have only ourselves to blame. We live in a society riddled with attorneys quick to try and get as much money as possible out of anyone who has pockets and when people see $$$ put in front of them, they get greedy. Not trying to bash attorneys here as there are many many good ones. But there are those that actively seek out claims uncessarily(ambulance chasers for one). The problem is that the people who retain them don't really think about these things either and either are greedy themselves or just think it's okay and that fraud is a victimless crime. Most people are not very good at being self-critical. And most people have a hard time seeing the benefits until they really need it. If you get into an accident that is your fault and you kill the other driver, you'll be very glad you had insurance. Even from a moral standpoint, I would hope you want to be able to compensate them somehow. Or if your house gets burned down by a fire. It's human nature to view things in a relative sense. If you pay a premium all the time and never have a loss, it will seem like a waste. But it's also peace of mind you pay for. And while you don;t want it to happen, if the unfortunate should occur, especially if it's alarge loss, you'll be glad to know it's there. Be careful you don't take things too much for granted...

[C-Kwik]

From the experiences I have had with insurance company, and those which my friends have had, I get the sense that it is just the opposite. In insurance companies try to get you to accept their first offer as quickly as possible. Being in dire straights puts you at their mercy. You need a car, you need money, there fore you're more likely to settle for the first number that they throw at you.

As C-Kwik has said, insurance companies are in it to make money. They are ruthless about it too. Unless you are willing to take them to court, they will pay you the very least that they can get away with. Granted, that is a generality. I have had good experience with State Farm. The thing is, I have had all too many bad experiences with companies that are not State Farm. And, State Farm charges more than most other companies out there. Because of that, they can afford to treat their customers better.

In an injury claim, that is true to an extent. Any offer made should be fair given the facts presented and gathered. There is typically a settlement range. The nature of determineg damages, especially in bodily injuries are subjective. You can put the same claim in front of 10 juries and you will probably get 10 different numbers. Most will probably be clolse, but occassionally you'll get blindsided. And that can be in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant.

If you are talking about total losses, generally, you are not bound to a release. Which means even if they settle, you can still ask for more. Not to say that you wil get it, considering that you should be able to support your case. In many cases, when there are disputes of the value of a car, an insurance company can in good faith make a payment for the undisputed amount so that you at least have money in hand to buy another car. Then you can continue with the discussions and gathering of proof of the value to try and resolve the disputed difference. I will say few companies offer this outright, but chances are it's due to the fact that the adjuster may not be aware this is an available option. I usually offer it first thing. Everyone wins.

I've never been ruthless about paying a reasonable claim. I can't recall any adjusters that are. Not to say they can't exist, but truly, being able to agree to a settlement is usually the best outcome. That's not to say an insurance company can't stand by a decision. If I felt a claim was worth a certain amount and I had no reason to believe a court or jury wouldn't generally agree with me, then why would I agree to settle. Particularly when there is a large difference? And keep in mind, particularly with property damage, it's easy to come up with a value that a jury can understand. If a car in a certain condition sells for X amount, a jury will can relate to that. So if you dispute, your evidence would have to be both credible and reasonable.

Even in insurance, you tend to get what you pay for. That's not to say a copany necessarily pays more, but that with a lot of cheaper policies, there can be more restrictions on what is covered. Aftermarket equipment for one thing. Certainly a company that charges a low premium may have to cut down operational costs, but I seriously doubt you;ll find that big an indifference in how they pay property damage claims. When my insured is at fault, I get subrogation demands from other carriers. I've seen many sub-standard carriers pay too much for their claims. I'd speculate that sometimes an understaffed company might pay more to close th file sooner. The boat can be tipped both ways.