I would like to ask the sub-rosa investigators this question: if you did hear, during this ‘confessional meeting’ that the insured lied, then what? What kind of jury, or judge for that matter, is going to admit this as evidence. The public perception would outweigh the evidence and Progressive loses either way. It does not take a mental giant to realize that information obtained in this manner is horribly wrong, if only from a public relations standpoint. The blogs on this site show that.
I have been in the business over 19 years. I am all for stamping out fraud, and using investigators/sub-rosa to find the fraudulent claims and bring them to light. That being said, I find the means this firm used to conduct surveillance disgusting!
I have an extremely hard time accepting the notion that 72% of claimants are trying to committ fraud. If that were true, roughly more than 2 out of 3 Americans are cheats and liars.
So question …Where do we draw the line when it comes to privacy? Should an investigator be able to follow you into a public bathroom stall to make sure that you are not committing fraud? Where does it end?
What is more distasteful than fraud? Going into a house of worship to get evidence of the fraud. Perception, perception, perception. We are the bad guys enough times. Why would we want to go into a church sponsored function to get evidence to deny a claim. It is good to have morals, scruples and all that goes with it but play by the rules. Everyone saw what happened when we tortured prisoners to get much needed information. Perception, perception, perception.
Where does it end? A real fight ends when you win or lose. If the bad guy runs into the bathroom, Nice, the fight continues there. Otherwise you just surrender to the bad guy and announce “attention bad guys, go into the bathroom and get away with any fraud”.
Steve is either lying (like his insureds/claimants) or just doesn’t know what he is talking about. There is no legitimate study out there that concludes that 72% of insureds/claimants lie about their claim. As a former claims adjuster, claims manager and now insurance defense attorney, I have at least as much knowledge about this subject as Steve and am willing to guarantee the numbers are not that high.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I would like to ask the sub-rosa investigators this question: if you did hear, during this ‘confessional meeting’ that the insured lied, then what? What kind of jury, or judge for that matter, is going to admit this as evidence. The public perception would outweigh the evidence and Progressive loses either way. It does not take a mental giant to realize that information obtained in this manner is horribly wrong, if only from a public relations standpoint. The blogs on this site show that.
What is more distasteful and unsettling than outright fraud?
I have been in the business over 19 years. I am all for stamping out fraud, and using investigators/sub-rosa to find the fraudulent claims and bring them to light. That being said, I find the means this firm used to conduct surveillance disgusting!
I have an extremely hard time accepting the notion that 72% of claimants are trying to committ fraud. If that were true, roughly more than 2 out of 3 Americans are cheats and liars.
Please, try to be real…
So question …Where do we draw the line when it comes to privacy? Should an investigator be able to follow you into a public bathroom stall to make sure that you are not committing fraud? Where does it end?
What is more distasteful than fraud? Going into a house of worship to get evidence of the fraud. Perception, perception, perception. We are the bad guys enough times. Why would we want to go into a church sponsored function to get evidence to deny a claim. It is good to have morals, scruples and all that goes with it but play by the rules. Everyone saw what happened when we tortured prisoners to get much needed information. Perception, perception, perception.
Would a judge have given police a search warrant on someones hunch. Who is committing the fraud here.
Where does it end? A real fight ends when you win or lose. If the bad guy runs into the bathroom, Nice, the fight continues there. Otherwise you just surrender to the bad guy and announce “attention bad guys, go into the bathroom and get away with any fraud”.
Steve is either lying (like his insureds/claimants) or just doesn’t know what he is talking about. There is no legitimate study out there that concludes that 72% of insureds/claimants lie about their claim. As a former claims adjuster, claims manager and now insurance defense attorney, I have at least as much knowledge about this subject as Steve and am willing to guarantee the numbers are not that high.
I could be wrong, but I think Steve was being sarcastic. He basically says in his note that this is made up information. Lighten up.