Same here (but in the UK ) I drive for work and for a bigger shop ( if I can walk I do. It’s the social side I am really down on
Insurance companies in general have a bad reputation world wide. Most of the reason is that they are overzealous in suspecting fraud and give serious claims a hard time. I have experienced this personally many times.
If people didn’t enter false claims there would be no need for them to be “overzealous”, surely.
The people at fault are those making the false claims, not the insurance companies who are just protecting the integrity of their raison d’etre.
3 Likes
Unfortunately you’re right but as Graham said the problem is that many ‘bad actors’ try to fraud the system and therefore they had to set up some processes to filter out as many as these fraudsters as possible which unfortunately include the good guys as well…
Exactely Graham 
And also the fact that it’s quite complex to understand what is covered and what is not. There are too many things to explain and way too many lines on a contract so that the average Joe doesn’t really know what they are insured for 
The main problem is that I think many people consider the insurance policy as the property caretaker meaning that they want to claim as soon as there is something wrong but that’s not how it works and most don’t get it. Only the damages caused by something identifiable to one’s property are insured usually.
No. It simply means that they have no good processes to differentiate a false claim from a good one; their “raison d’etre” is to make money, not to protect you.
Some insurance companies use better, more fine-tuned processes than others. This leads me to conclude that a) some individual agents or adjusters simply should not be in the job; b) some insurance companies should adjust their processes so they are reasonable by benchmarking against industry best-practices.
Blaming poor behavior on “a few bad actors” is a cop-out. (Typical of poorly run companies to blame their customers!) It’s not a good business when a company treats its premium-paying clients like criminals. Unfortunately, bad management and bad communication up and down the line seems to be the rule, probably due to laziness. When you ask them a question about their practices and policies, the wrong answer is “It depends”. If an industry cannot tell you their own decision-making criteria, they shouldn’t be in business. I’ve dropped insurance companies in France for specifically that reason.
As any other business is stiving to do. Fact is, like both Graham and Fabien have said, there a lot of folks out there looking for ways to beat the system. A case in Ireland recently where a gang were out to cause tailenders and claim compensation. They were caught when the woman in question made 2 claims for accidents on one day. Both were miles apart and the same vehicle. hummph so i can understand when insurance companies charge higher premiums. Another case was with the Allianz some years ago. I took out a home insurance policy (contents), where the policy stated a motor boat in the cellar was insured, but my Model aircraft were’nt. Work that one out.
1 Like
Yes and no!
Yes because they need to make money but that’s accordingly to law (it’s mandatory by law that they should make some profits each year as per EU legislation called SOLVA2). And if they were not meant to be profitable then they would be a public service (which the state could provide and I personally would find this relevant for information ).
No because, in order to be able to refund the big claims and to be profitable they need to make sure the potential fraudsters are weeded out. For example, I’ve processed (and refunded) more 100.000€ worth of claims last year, the average premium being 350€ a year how much do you think pay ‘for nothing’? This is what we call the mutualisation, most pay for nothing but the guys who needed the 100k€ probably don’t see that as a bad thing and that’s perfectly normal
I cannot agree more with your first paragraph… Actually I’m dealing with some competitors that aren’t playing fair and their “advise” can jeopardize future claims for their customers. But as they are agent they are covered by the company and usually the paperwork is well done so the only one who’s at the risk is the customer Unfortunately I’m seeing this way too often and there isn’t much I can do (try to tell to a customer that is choosing the competition that the competition is dodgy and you’re the one who looks dodgy ).
I’m part of an insurance broker union and I’m trying to be as clean as Frenchly possible even though that means we say things that the competition doesn’t and that’s sometime costing us business (like full transparency on our fees or the way we’re paid for example).
Hopefully everyone will be more transparent in the future so that the broker’s advise is really independent but we’re not there yet. And I fear we’re not heading that way, look at online brokers, they are literally incentivised to push some offers upfront whereas it’s supposed to be illegal but as everything looks clean on the paperwork they edit the regulators say that’s okay 
2 Likes
We trust your judgement without qualification, absolutely @fabien and long may your honesty prevail!
People buy from people - the cheapest is not always the best option.
2 Likes
Insurance companies do not rely on interest rates.
They have their own in house specialist investment companies.
My daughter is MD of one of them.
1 Like
Impressive, I’m aware of this but never met / heard of someone working in that department… the insurance world is really deep and for me that’s reassuring as we need them to have loads of cash in case of big catastrophes (like we’ve had in the past and every time they answered ).