Sir,
I've read many of your responses during my time here, and have always enjoyed your open, honest and professional opinions and advice. For all that you do, I thank you.
And with that said, I would like to respond to your comments below:
The cynicism about insurance always amazes me.
Why?
Most of the underlying skepticism has been brought about by it's own actions.
Insurance companies are a business, like any other, and are in business to make a profit.
.
Very true, but at what lengths will they go to make that profit? Where's the benefit to the customer/client to reduce/minimize claims? Certainly not in lowered premiums in most cases (I know that's a wide brush, so my apologies in advance).
challenge/problem I often see is that the public sees insurance as an ATM machine and its assumed that every single event that generates a claim is automatically covered
Again, very true.
Unfortunately, this attitude is in large part perpetuated by our legal system.
Between the types that claim to be "for the people", the defenders of the abused, protectors of the accused, the Champions of the victims, and the dozens of other tag lines out there, who line their pockets feeding off of and fueling the greed of those people looking for a "quick buck", and the propensity for criminal enterprise of certain groups within our society, the insurance companies have been forced to examine claims more thoroughly over the years.
Unfortunately, in my line of work I have seen all too often the result of an overzealous adjuster firsthand. The times where a legitimate claim is dragged out far too long, putting the insured through more hoops than a 3 ring circus dog, and in some cases, leaving them with massive debt or huge inconvenience/safety issues while they wait.
Just think back to the several storms that ravaged certain parts of our state in the mid 2000's, and the blue tarps that remained in place for years to follow.
That kind of "service" does nothing to promote a warm fuzzy feeling among the populace, and forces the client to "lawyer up" just to obtain what is rightfully owed.
I know that there is fraud even then. I've seen it. We've investigated it. People claiming losses that don't exist, and overstating values. It's a sad situation.
Then look at the position (iirc) State Farm took, claiming massive losses and trying to cut and run! But when there's a surplus, do they rebate the customer? Of course not. It's a risk. A cap shoot, offset by statistical analysis.
We pay to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our assets against what may happen, and the company takes on that risk for a price. Roll the dice.
Doesn't work that way. The policy language (that almost nobody reads) spells out in detail what is and what is not covered.
Again true, but try reading it. To the untrained, it's generally a Mish mash of legalese. Line after line, paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of exceptions, exclusions and limitations. In the end, many people still have no idea what is and is not covered, so they rely (or should) on professionals such as yourself to make sure they're properly covered. I actually had an agent tell me once, "don't worry about it." "It's all standard wording" "You're in good shape. " I immediately found another agent!
Fortunately for us, there are people such as yourself that care, and appear to look out for the good of the individual rather than just their bank account. Again, thank you!
in my experience as a broker/agent, I see companies looking for ways to pay a claim- above and beyond what the policy language stipulates...
After all the above, I do have to say that not everyone in the industry is like those depicted above, any more than every cop is crooked, every priest a pedophile or every financial consultant/broker a crook! It was with a very wide brush that I painted.
Again I'm proud to know that there are those like yourself who try to look out for us, as well as companies that take care of their clients with minimal hassle or delay, and I'm starting to see more "safety" and longevity discounts being provided by some companies.
Now, if we could start putting some of the fraudulent claimants in jail (or deporting them as would be the case for many), rather than just denying the claims, and cracking down on the frivolous litigation, those that'll settle because it's quicker and more cost productive for "them" (yes, I know a few personally), then maybe we could clean up the image a bit.
your thoughts sir, and thank you.
OD
