Report comment

I will start by being honest & say I previously worked for a major insurer operating a counter fraud department but I come in peace as I see both sides.

Statistics can be manipulated to suit both sides, as has been proven with recent articles & publications so why everyone places so much stock in what is being produced is wrong. Firstly you have to understand what criteria is being measured before comparing the data as I suspect that the criteria being measured will be different by both sides to benefit their argument.

I totally agree that innocent victims of injury should have access to justice & not be met with obstacles placed by the insurance industry to prevent a claim being made. The view that all insurers operate this practice is naïve at best, stupid at it worse. I don’t deny that some insurer claims models will be to make it as difficult as possible for anyone wanting to make a claim but there are many who operate a very fair process to ensure genuine claims are paid & quickly.

Some contributors have stated that since the claims are not being paid then how can the insurance industry claim that reduction in fraud will reduce premiums by up to £50? It’s true that the claims are not being paid but how do you think it got to that stage? It required a person or team to invest time & money to investigate the allegations, if these spurious claims are prevented from entering the system then the insurer will have nothing to investigate, thus reducing their operating costs etc.

The idea that insurers include claims from customers who just decided against claiming as a fraud saving or alleged fraud claim is absurd. If a claim is presented which is fraudulent & through investigation the claimant walks away, then yes this would be included….not all fraud is proven, to base it solely on proven fraud is too simplistic.

I agree that far too many insurers go on fishing expeditions to try & identify possible fraudulent claims which make the process worse & generates the resentment from claimant solicitors. This practice is in my view appalling & only goes to waste time & resource of claims which should be paid quickly.

At the centre of this both sides share a common goal…to ensure genuine claimants are compensated. I have never worked for an insurer (I have worked for several of the major insurers in the UK) who’s model was to not pay claims at all costs. Yes there is a focus on claims spend, of course, they are a business but the same can be said for Claimants Solicitors who want to maximise the claim (not exaggerate) to get the most for their client & their business. There is nothing wrong with either side’s approach, that to me is part of the negotiation process that has existed for years.

In order to truly assess the problem both sides need to agree what constitutes fraud or alleged fraud therefore any statistics are measured on the same criteria & we would have a true understanding. I agree that some insurers definition will be looser that others & includes elements of claims which should not be included.

Apologies for the long ramble but not all insurers are out to screw over claimants.