To get past those cute but misleading TV ads, and arrive at a better understanding of just how the insurance industry really works, you need to understand first, that insurance companies are in the business to make money for their stockholders.
That’s it. There is no second. The policyholder is never taken into consideration when there is a claim. The mindset for the insurance company, no matter what name or logo is on its letterhead, is driven by one overriding question: How can we get out of this obligation with the least cost to shareholders?
It matters not one whit whether it is life, property & casualty, auto, or health insurance. The company’s very purpose for existing is not to see that policyholders are made whole but how the payout on claims may be minimized so as to inflict the least monetary damage to the company’s bottom line.
Do you think that life insurance claim that was slow paying off was simply to investigate whether or not the beneficiary had a part in the insured’s death? While that may be a part of it, particularly in cases of suspicious circumstances (such as falling off a cliff during a hike in Bryce Canyon), there may well be other factors involved, such as delaying payment as long as possible in order to accrue as much return on the investment of premiums as possible.
You didn’t really think the companies just leave that money lying around waiting for the insured to die, did you? No, it’s invested heavily in all sorts of things in order to earn money for the company. https://www.paxforpeace.nl/stay-informed/news/insurers-invest-nearly-7-billion-in-controversial-arms-trade
And it’s your money they do it with.
Did you ever wonder why your auto insurance company would suggest a particular body shop for repairs to your car after an accident? Why not the body shop of the dealer from whom the car was purchased? It could be—and often is—because the recommended body shop uses what is called “after-market” parts for repairs. That means the parts are generally inferior to those of the dealership’s original parts and can diminish the resale value of your vehicle. Did you ever notice that after repairs at some of those shops, the quarter panel replacement no longer fits flush with the original undamaged part of your car? Or you have air leaks (or worse, water leaks) around the replacement door that weren’t there before? That would be the likely result of after-market parts. http://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2015/02/12/anderson-cooper-360-piece-attacks-insurers-for-steering-parts-video/
You’re not happy, but your insurance company is ecstatic. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/05/08/insurers-auto-repair-tactics-only-part-of-problem-jindal-old-firm-mckinsey-co-coached-katrina-on-claims-delays-denials/
And who hasn’t experienced battles with health insurance companies that refused to cover a certain type of treatment because it’s considered “experimental.” Now, because of changes in the Office of Group Benefits instituted by the Jindal administration, state retirees who move out of state may find themselves no longer covered because their physicians are “out of network,” meaning they are non-participants in OGB’s coverage plan. Sorry, we don’t have any doctors in Arkansas or Mississippi who are part of the plan. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/08/25/louisianavoice-learns-of-jindal-plan-to-force-state-retirees-out-of-ogb-by-raising-members-premiums-cutting-benefits/
But by far, the most subtle method of claim manipulation is in the property & casualty field, namely your homeowners and flood insurance programs.
As we wrote in April, insurers will prepare repair estimates at two costs, depending on whether the damage to a home was caused by wind or flood. Repair estimates generally run much less on wind damage claims than for floods—even though the same material is used on each claim.
That is because the companies themselves are on the hook for any wind damage while flood damage, if covered at all, is the responsibility of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), claims for which are paid by the federal government, i.e. taxpayers.
But that’s not to say Allstate is averse to handling flood claims. Quite the contrary. Allstate, in fact, has had an arrangement with NFIP under which NFIP Allstate is paid for handling flood claims.
Accordingly, if Allstate found itself on the hook for wind damages, it would use a lower formula for paying claimants but if it determined the damages were caused by flooding, a second, more expensive separate formula would be employed.
In one example we found, damage was determined to be from wind and Allstate paid 83 cents per square foot for removal and replacement of drywall (sheetrock). In another claim from the same storm and in the same part of the state, it was determined to be flood damage and that same dry wall removal and replacement—paid for by American taxpayers—was $1.53 per square foot, a difference of 70 cents per square foot. Painting that drywall cost Allstate 35 cents per square foot for the wind-damage claim but cost NFIP (taxpayers) 58 cents per square foot for the flood damage claim.
That was not an anomaly. In comparing two 2011 claims from Tropical Storm Lee in southwest Louisiana, LouisianaVoice found that damage to one home was determined to be from wind. The cost of removing and replacing drywall (sheetrock) was estimated at $1.75 per square foot and painting of the drywall was estimated at 55 cents per square foot. That, of course was the cost to the insurance company, in this case, Colonial.
A second claim only a few miles away, also the result of Lee, was also for a home covered by Colonial. In this case, the damaged was determined to be the result of flooding, so the claim now belonged to NFIP. The estimate to remove and repair drywall for this home was $2.47 per square foot and the cost of painting that same drywall was estimated at 87 cents per square foot.
Assuming an area of 1000 square feet, you’re looking at a cost differential of $720 for removal and replacement of the drywall and a difference of $320 for painting, or an overall cost increase of $1,040 for repairs to a flood-damaged home compared to the wind-damaged structure.
By the time, other costs are factored in—costs for such things as replacing and painting molding, baseboards, doors and door frames, replacing electrical outlets and door hardware, removing and replacing windows and window trim, painting window frames, replacement of carpeting and/or wood flooring, the difference between a wind and a flood claim can be enormous.
And that doesn’t even include one other factor that goes into all estimates—overhead and profit (O&P) for the contractor. There has to be a profit for the contractor. That’s understandable; no one would expect him to repair your house for nothing.
But like the repairs themselves, the percentage of overhead and profit has a wide variance, depending on whether or not the damage is determined to be from wind or flooding.
LouisianaVoice has obtained three boxes of claims documents that not only reflect damning evidence of NFIP gouging on the costs of specific repairs, but in the allowance for contractor O&P, as well.
Built-in allowances for O&P for wind claims paid by the individual companies range around 20-29 percent. But for flood claims, paid by the American taxpayer through the NFIP, that O&P can range from 48 to 51 percent, according to documents in our possession.
For example, going back to 2005, O&P for one wind-damage claim was estimated at 28 percent for a Mississippi wind claim from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina. But flood damage from the same hurricane resulted in contractor O&P of 51 percent. Both estimates were done by Allstate.
Wind damage from Hurricane Ida in Texas in 2009 resulted in a claim in which contractor O&P was 29 percent, according to Allstate damage estimates. But when damage from that same storm was determined to be from flooding, the contractor O&P shot up quickly, to 49 percent, Allstate documents show.
But Allstate and Colonial were not the only practitioners of such claim manipulation—not by a long shot. Here’s a story about how the game was played in the same manner by STATE FARM.
Project these tactics over a large, densely-populated area like that destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and at least one estimate of the increased cost from “padding” both specific damages and contractor overhead and profit has taxpayers in the two states being ripped off to the tune of approximately $10 billion.
And while strict insurance fraud laws are on the books that could result in a prison sentence if you so much as included a non-existent flat screen television on your claim, there apparently is no one minding the store to guard against raping the taxpayer-funded NFIP.
And as long as the insurance companies continue to pour money into the campaign coffers of members of Congress, state legislators and regulators, you can be sure there will never be.
Perfect.



Tom you forgot to highlight one point. That Allstate and other insurance companies make a profit for PROCESSING the flood claims. I am not sure but it is my belief that their pay is based upon how complex the estimate (meaning the more expensive the claim) thus the higher the claim the higher the commission-which sounds logical till one notices the results…especially when factored across a community as you pointed out. There are answers. Third party adjusters licensed by the state insurance department and sent out on a rotating basis, not company owned so one has to adjust in court. Flood now has some limitations, below slab items etc. Better to have some coverage than have the program go finally belly up. The rates like your examples could be set. Providing basic item coverage, if one had a more ornate or complex home one might be able to purchase a supplement, so one is not getting slab doors and entry level appliances, also shared loss like say 90/10 option. Another less desirable BUT insurance industry happy idea, have the insurance industry bid to be paid by the feds to take the policies.Then the insurance industry would be paying out their own monies and the rates would go way way down- that’s not probably a good idea but it sounds like what would pass legislatively.
You are correct. I should have been clearer in saying that Allstate had an “arrangement” with NFIP to adjust flood claims. I should have said it had a contract with NFIP. Certainly, Allstate isn’t doing that out of the goodness of its heart; the company is paid well for taking on that responsibility (while at the same time, enabling it to tweak the claims from possibly wind damage to definitely flood). I also believe you are accurate in your assertion that Allstate is paid on the basis of the complexity of the claim.
Thanks for the clarification.
Some of the most compelling arguments I’ve seen yet for getting the government OUT as many lines of business as possible, and that includes providing subsidized flood insurance! This article illustrates perfectly how inept the government can be at controlling costs. Nobody at NFIP ever says, “Let me see your invoices that your company is paying for wind damage in the same neighborhood,”?
Also, there is another side of the equation to those bad insurance companies, and it’s thoroughly illustrated at the bottom of the following link (readers who can keep from throwing up at the title and watch the full video will quickly see the arguments are hard to refute): http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=179.
I’ve had no problems with SF over the years, but I’ve only had car insurance with them. One reason I went with them 55 years ago was they were a mutual company, presumably not requiring profit per se, but making enough to cover its insured. I do know they run cheaper than most others and, as I said, I’ve been happy with their service.
Forgot to add my question: what was their motive if they’re not out to please stockholders?
Whether mutual or not, money is the driving force. With mutual companies operating profits are needed to help finance future growth, maintain a reserve against future liabilities, offset rates or premiums, and maintain industry ratings among other needs.
Stock companies, on the other hand, have more flexibility and can raise money by selling debt and issuing additional shares of stock.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/011916/mutual-vs-publically-traded-insurance-companies.asp
At lunch today there was a story on NPR about the government looking at changing things. I believe the comment was that the FIP was upside down by several billion. The crux of the story was that the government is looking at building a relationship with insurance companies; letting them sell policies and set competitive rates (I assume astronomical) for homeowners.
Remember prior to the Federal Flood program one could NOT buy flood insurance. I grew up in old metairie. Our modern slab built home was located just two blocks from Laurence Chehardy in the same subdivision. We flooded at least 3 times during the time we lived there.Terrible! There was no flood insurance available for even a professional (lawyer) like my father as the industry refused. This is a case where the Government has a vested interest to intervene to provide universal coverage where people have no other choice to live (ex job = LA). They could as I describe earlier collect payments and then bid to make payments to insurance companies to accept the policies. Over the long term flood premiums are paid which is far different from the recent 100K households that are to be provided limited amounts all at one time from the federal coffers, amounts distributed limited by income. The latter seems a very poor alternative to everyone purchasing over the long term even at a small policy payment flood insurance. In essence I am saying we the taxpayers ARE NOW providing coverage with out receiving ANY payments where we would be better served even with small, but continuous payments. In my previous comments I mentioned rates. What I meant was as the insurance companies owned the policies they would be reluctant to overpay the insured resulting influencing the current situation where the program is in jeopardy.(finally adjusters use standards, ie paint $ sq ft. $ shingles 20yr $ cabinets per ft. one can limit payment standards ex. 20yr shingles vs 50). A 20 yr roof is better than no roof at all because the program is gone….. Many Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
And keep in mind, conservatives believe government is too big and too controlling of business as it is. Major reason being, it decreases profits. Given that our state continues to primarily vote conservative in state and national elections what more can the people expect?