I Hate Insurance Companies

[JPhillips]

A few weeks ago my wife was involved in a three-car accident in NYC. She was rear-ended and the car was totaled. It was a 2014 Ford Focus SE, not a fancy car, but it was my daughter's first car. My wife, daughter, father-in-law, and sister-in-law were all in the car. Nobody was injured, although they were banged up and sore the next day. Nobody missed work. We didn't claim anything related to work or medical through insurance. My wife was told by the agent that she was 100% not at fault.

All we want from the insurance is a fair value to replace the lost car.

The first offer was far lower than any of the ads we found on Car Max, Carvana, Edmunds, or Used Cars. The comparables used for the offer are a joke. Out of 12 comparables, 10 aren't available and 1 has twice as many miles. We complained and sent back comparables with the VIN# that they insisted on and they sent a new offer, $500 dollars more than the first. The new list of 12 comparables now included 2 that were the same model and available, but one of them has a disclaimer about fees that will be included in the price. I'm waiting to see if that dealer will put those fees in writing. This list of comps included several hatchbacks even though the wrecked car had a trunk and most of the list was between 75 and 100 miles away.

I've been involved in three total loss accidents in my life and each time I have only asked for the money to replace the car, no medical or lost work or other claims. Each time it's been impossible to get a fair deal. Each time I'm ready to hire a lawyer even if it means I get less. This is my insurance company that I've been a loyal customer of for over 20 years and they are doing everything they can in their bullshit "Independent" evaluation to fuck me over (at one point they just subtract $1000 from the value of the wrecked car because they claim it was average condition and used cars at dealers are better maintained.

I'm willing to fight this out and get an attorney, but most people aren't willing or able to track down all of the bullshit comps and they just get cheated. If I'm going to be treated like I have shitty bargain insurance I might as well just get shitty bargain insurance and at least save on my premiums.

[Flasch186]

It’s been my experience that like HR departments, insurance company’s are not there to actually work for your benefit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coffee Warlord]

Their independent evaluators are anything but independent. Until you get to an adjuster who actually works for the insurance provider, they'll continue to lowball the fuck out of you.

(My uncle has been playing this game for months with insurance, he's one of the people who lost his house in those fires in Superior/Louisville CO a few months back).

And yes, to an insurance provider, you're only a good customer if you don't use the service. It's a totally rigged game.

[sterlingice]

One time, after having to send back an umpteenth coordination of benefits form, saying, "no, I don't have another insurance", I wrote in the comments "In The Incredibles, you know you're the bad guys, right?"

SI

[Ksyrup]

via GIPHY

[PilotMan]

So K man, we actually had a good experience this year. A woman made a left into oncoming traffic this summer and my son hit her. He had been doing 45 and had no chance to get it slowed down. She was found at fault. His car was totaled.

They gave us over 2k more than what we paid for the car just a couple years earlier. The comps were solid, the full documentation for everything was over 40 pages long. It was far more impressive and way better than I ever expected to get. They basically gave us full retail value, not some trade, or wholesale value.

[SirFozzie]

My folks are dealing with the insurance adjusters from Hurricane Ian. As you can imagine, things are slammed down there.

[Ksyrup]

I get it. Insurance is setup with an inherent conflict of interest - it's cooked into the nature of the industry. I've had my home insurance company threaten to cancel me for making 2 claims in 5 years, even with 25 years of loyalty.

Insurance is interesting because there's pressure from all sides to thread the needle. You need to make money but you can't make too much or too little. It's so highly regulated that you can't even give it away (for solvency reasons). And then, like most industries, you have bad actors, different companies with different business models, etc.

I've got the double whammy of being in two businesses at the same time where it's almost impossible to look good or make people happy. Being an insurance company attorney, I'm surprised I'm not randomly slapped across the face at least once a day by a total stranger.

[JPhillips]

My biggest problem is with the bullshit comps from CCC One. Out of 23 or 24 comps there were only three that were both available and the same trim as our car. There's no way the insurance company would see them as valid if I submitted them, but the insurance company is hiding behind an "independent" analysis.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I've got the double whammy of being in two businesses at the same time where it's almost impossible to look good or make people happy. Being an insurance company attorney, I'm surprised I'm not randomly slapped across the face at least once a day by a total stranger.

Rest assured, it's only because the average person doesn't know what your job is unless you volunteer it

SI

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My biggest problem is with the bullshit comps from CCC One. Out of 23 or 24 comps there were only three that were both available and the same trim as our car. There's no way the insurance company would see them as valid if I submitted them, but the insurance company is hiding behind an "independent" analysis.

I've no idea how they are doing the comps, and full disclosure the insurance company is going to pay out as little as possible.

That being said, you rarely have comps that have the same trim, packages, etc...and instead the formula makes adjustments based on the value of these things. Also, with regards to vehicles being available, when I did total losses the comps were based on how much the same vehicle sold for, not what it was listed for. Someone can ask anything for a vehicle, doesn't mean thats what it was worth.

[JPhillips]

But CCC One is using list prices as comps. These low list prices, though, don't include the small type of all the fees that will be added to the purchase. Right now I'm trying to get an accurate price quote for a comp in Queens and the dealer won't tell me how much the fees will be.

And with trim I'm really just talking about the difference between a trunk and a hatchback. The hatchback Focus is worth a couple of thousand less than the model with a trunk. It isn't comparable in terms of price.

State Farm could solve this entirely by buying a substantially similar replacement, but they won't do that because they know the offer isn't good enough to actually buy the car.

[bhlloy]

It’s funny the industries people will and won’t tolerate capitalism in. I mean I get insurance is very personal but fundamentally they are all private businesses with shareholders and a fiscal responsibility to them.

[Flasch186]

I think the problem I have with insurance is the promises and expectations that are said versus what actually happens and their motivations/conflicts of interest. I love capitalism… I just think that the peanut butter ought not have salmonella in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ksyrup]

There's pressure from shareholders, market forces, and regulators. Insurance companies don't charge as much as they would like, but they also can't attempt to gain your business with freebies or cut-rate premiums that aren't actuarially supportable and approved by state DOIs.

A lot of what ails the claims side, generally speaking, is lack of knowledge/understanding of what policies provide for and difficulty selling insurance without getting too technical or being able to cover every issue/contingency in pre-sale conversations. People only have a general idea of what insurance should cover, and companies don't want to (or can't) explain every detail. It's a complex consumer product.

I suppose you could try to make it less complex, but that would mean jacking rates to cover things otherwise excluded - and then you'd end up with class action lawsuits because a company isn't covering something not intended by the policy but not specifically excluded.

[bhlloy]

Yeah, I was going to DOLA to say that ironically insurance is probably the most regulated industry and the one industry where if they don’t give you what they legally agreed to give you, not only can you sue the fuck out of them but they will also likely be sued by the DOI and get doubly hammered for it.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think the problem I have with insurance is the promises and expectations that are said versus what actually happens and their motivations/conflicts of interest. I love capitalism… I just think that the peanut butter ought not have salmonella in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can you name an industry segment (at least in the US where advertising standards are not the same as they are in Europe for example) that promises what is advertised?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But CCC One is using list prices as comps. These low list prices, though, don't include the small type of all the fees that will be added to the purchase. Right now I'm trying to get an accurate price quote for a comp in Queens and the dealer won't tell me how much the fees will be.

And with trim I'm really just talking about the difference between a trunk and a hatchback. The hatchback Focus is worth a couple of thousand less than the model with a trunk. It isn't comparable in terms of price.

State Farm could solve this entirely by buying a substantially similar replacement, but they won't do that because they know the offer isn't good enough to actually buy the car.

They definitely shouldn't be using a hatch and a trunk as comparable. As for the fees, it is their responsibility to give you fair market value for the vehicle, nothing more. Their responsibility isn't to replace the vehicle but to compensate you for the loss.

Just curious, are you handling the claim through your insurance or the person who rear ended you?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

A lot of what ails the claims side, generally speaking, is lack of knowledge/understanding of what policies provide for and difficulty selling insurance without getting too technical or being able to cover every issue/contingency in pre-sale conversations. People only have a general idea of what insurance should cover, and companies don't want to (or can't) explain every detail. It's a complex consumer product.

.

Having worked 7 years in insurance, some on the claims side, most on the repair portion, I can tell you this is 1000% true. If I had a nickel every time someone said "I have full coverage" I would have a shit ton of nickels. Everyone signs up because they have to have it, then when they need it have no clue about the product they bought,, they just assume it is covered. Everyone is sent a copy of the policy and no one reads it, so when your car gets repaired with used parts or after market they freak, even though it is right there is writing. Same goes for total loss evaluations ( not saying J is uninformed, just saying 99% of people are). It is also tough because most people only need it a few times in their life, but don't trust the people providing them the service when they do need it. I always treated people fairly, but you can only do so much.

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Yeah, I was going to DOLA to say that ironically insurance is probably the most regulated industry and the one industry where if they don’t give you what they legally agreed to give you, not only can you sue the fuck out of them but they will also likely be sued by the DOI and get doubly hammered for it.

Absolutely. The hoops you have to go through to outright deny a claim are massive unless it is super cut and dry, even then there were hoops to jump thought.

[Flasch186]

@bhlloy ice cream


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They definitely shouldn't be using a hatch and a trunk as comparable. As for the fees, it is their responsibility to give you fair market value for the vehicle, nothing more. Their responsibility isn't to replace the vehicle but to compensate you for the loss.

Just curious, are you handling the claim through your insurance or the person who rear ended you?

In NY they have to provide retail value + sales tax and by using list prices as the basis for their valuation they are already saying retail value is based on what it would cost to buy a substantially similar vehicle. The problem is their comparisons are so poor they border on fraudulent, which isn't surprising since CCC One has settled multiple class action suits in the past for similar fuckery.

The fight is entirely over what constitutes a realistic comparison, the prices of cars for sale currently or the prices of cars not available, not similar in trim or mileage, or at dealers with unspecified fees that will be a part of the purchase price.

[Lathum]

Who is handling the claim? Your insurance or the other parties?

[JPhillips]

Mine. Currently it's under our claim, but we are supposed to be reimbursed for our expenses, deductible, rental car co-pay, etc. because my wife is 100% not at fault. I think part of the issue is that the person 100% at fault is also with our insurance company, so they are on the hook for everything regardless.

[miked]

I've never really understood insurance. The companies insuring you have a conflict of interest in that it is in their best benefit to screw you over. Like they have shareholders and profits, and in most places it is required to purchase various forms of insurance (health, car, etc), so they have a vested interest in returning as little to you as possible within the confines of a 30 page policy to cover my car in an accident.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Mine. Currently it's under our claim, but we are supposed to be reimbursed for our expenses, deductible, rental car co-pay, etc. because my wife is 100% not at fault. I think part of the issue is that the person 100% at fault is also with our insurance company, so they are on the hook for everything regardless.

aha. That rules out finding out what their company would offer you.

I wish you luck, we didn't use CCC and I remember hearing terrible things about them.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by miked

I've never really understood insurance. The companies insuring you have a conflict of interest in that it is in their best benefit to screw you over. Like they have shareholders and profits, and in most places it is required to purchase various forms of insurance (health, car, etc), so they have a vested interest in returning as little to you as possible within the confines of a 30 page policy to cover my car in an accident.

It's tough, because you have to make it affordable for people otherwise chaos ensues. There is also rampant fraud in that industry that drives up rates.

I will say certainly myself, and most of the people I worked with, didn't wake up in the morning looking for ways to screw people over.

[bhlloy]

Which is my original point. You would never say any other industry exists just to screw people over. Insurance companies need to attract and retain customers and make money just like any other business. And unlike most businesses, what you actually buy is heavily regulated and written in precise language, if you take the time to understand it.

People have bad experiences with builders but nobody would come on here to say they hate all builders. You’d say I had a bad experience with a shitty builder.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

People have bad experiences with builders but nobody would come on here to say they hate all builders. You’d say I had a bad experience with a shitty builder.

"All" is simpler than saying 99.9% however

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Having worked 7 years in insurance, some on the claims side, most on the repair portion, I can tell you this is 1000% true. If I had a nickel every time someone said "I have full coverage" I would have a shit ton of nickels. Everyone signs up because they have to have it, then when they need it have no clue about the product they bought,, they just assume it is covered. Everyone is sent a copy of the policy and no one reads it, so when your car gets repaired with used parts or after market they freak, even though it is right there is writing. Same goes for total loss evaluations ( not saying J is uninformed, just saying 99% of people are). It is also tough because most people only need it a few times in their life, but don't trust the people providing them the service when they do need it. I always treated people fairly, but you can only do so much.

Yeah, and no. I mean, can we agree that it is deliberately opaque? I mean, it's akin to the cliche that if the next iTunes EULA said they could have your firstborn, tens of thousands would have clicked "Yes" (before it was discovered by the internet and probably even longer if it was buried in page 24 of lawyer language). Yes, yes, I'm paying money for it, but I'm not a lawyer, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to afford to retain a lawyer to read over every single document you've ever signed. There has to be a degree of expecting what is in the contract is reasonable.

And we're not even getting into things like the whole confusion between, say, flood vs windstorm coverage during a hurricane or whatnot. But if you wanted to try and do your due diligence and find clarity, an insurance agent is the person best equipped to tell you about the difference between products. However, they're also incentivized to work against your self interest. His or her best outcome is to have you pay more money for things the company never has to pay out.

As to the whole thing about used parts vs non-used parts - it's not something I had really thought about. But has it always been this way? In the past was it industry standard to use factory parts but has shifted away? Was it one of those things where one company did it to cut corners and then when everyone else saw they could get away with it or make more money with a "new parts rider", the other major companies followed suit. It feels like the insurance equivalent of "right-sizing" in the way that, say, salad dressing bottles or cereal boxes keep getting smaller so the producer can charge the same for less product. However, with insurance, it's something you hope to never have to use or maybe once a decade as opposed to the obvious visible changes with a product that you buy many times a year.

I don't believe the average insurance underwriter or adjuster is setting out to screw people on a daily basis. But I bet they're incentivized to do it, so, as a whole, it's done. Write too many claims, don't grind out every last cent, don't upsell products a customer doesn't need, and you're out of a job. And it's certainly not unique to the insurance industry - most major industries have this problem now because there's no oversight or penalties. But the insurance industries also don't get a pass for it and because of its inherent conflict of interest (a money product solely balanced paying out vs premiums), it's perfect to flourish in this time of corrupt complexity.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Which is my original point. You would never say any other industry exists just to screw people over. Insurance companies need to attract and retain customers and make money just like any other business. And unlike most businesses, what you actually buy is heavily regulated and written in precise language, if you take the time to understand it.

People have bad experiences with builders but nobody would come on here to say they hate all builders. You’d say I had a bad experience with a shitty builder.

I've had bad experiences with multiple insurance companies. In each case I didn't ask for medical or miss work or anything other than a fair valuation of my car. In each case I had to fight and get legal help before I got an offer that would have been accepted in week one.

I don't think everyone that works for insurance companies is bad, but, yes, I do think systems are in place to make sure that fair offers are hard to get. It's little things like my wife's number, that they had on file, having at least thirty minute holds every time she's called versus my office number, that they didn't have on file, going traight through to an agent. The system is designed to wear you down and get you to quit before you get a fair offer. CCC One is just the most egregious example in my case.

[Ksyrup]

I did have my insurance company give the repair shop my work number from a job I left in 2006 rather than the cell number I gave them on the phone that day. I called the shop to get an update and they said they left a message on the status of repairs a week earlier (at the wrong number). But that kind of stuff, it's just incompetency when it's happening at that low a level. Which shouldn't happen, of course, but competency issues become pretty transparent when you need help as opposed to 99.9% of the time when you are just a passive customer.

[JPhillips]

In the example I used, I don't think it's limited to insurance companies. I think most customer service is designed to be painful enough to make some people give up but not so painful as to lose plausible deniability that everything is working as well as possible. Calling Verizon is designed to be maddening.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by miked

I've never really understood insurance. The companies insuring you have a conflict of interest in that it is in their best benefit to screw you over. Like they have shareholders and profits, and in most places it is required to purchase various forms of insurance (health, car, etc), so they have a vested interest in returning as little to you as possible within the confines of a 30 page policy to cover my car in an accident.

I'm not sure that this is still the case, but I worked for an insurance company right out of college in the early 2000's, and there was a percentage cap that the insurance had to spend on claims. I believe it is enforced by state law, so insurance companies cannot screw people over (too badly). I was trying to Google to see what it is/was and I think it is called the 'Combined Ratio,' but I couldn't find actual numbers to be certain. Basically, the Combined Ratio is (Losses + Expenses)/Premiums. So, the insurance companies have to spend a certain amount on claims - it wasn't like we were ever told to lowball or anything like that. In fact, property damage (car or house or item values were usually the least of our concern, as long as the repairs or replacement was done and there was no fraud) was the least of our worries - the much bigger and more variable expenses were injuries and pain and suffering, as they can potentially get into the courtroom and balloon to really high numbers, whereas property always has a pretty fixed cap on its value.

Like Lathum, I always tried to be fair and, honestly, didn't really give much of a shit. It wasn't my money and it was always easier to settle and close my cases rather than screw around over a few hundred or thousand dollars. If someone showed me 4 or 5 examples of how much something cost, it was the easiest thing in the world for me to approve because the evidence was there and already documented - I didn't have to do much beyond cut a check. I'm not saying this is the case here, but a lot of times, people just had unrealistic expectations of how much their property was worth or what condition it was in. Those situations were always more difficult to settle on the customer side than getting my supervisors to approve something on the company side.

I think JPhillips is doing the right thing by trying to find examples of what similar make/year/model/mileage vehicles are selling for. At our company, we used a market search company (like it sounds like here) and then our unwritten rule was, if they could find 3+ examples of similar cars, we would average them together and pay that amount (sometimes with adjustment for mileage).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In the example I used, I don't think it's limited to insurance companies. I think most customer service is designed to be painful enough to make some people give up but not so painful as to lose plausible deniability that everything is working as well as possible. Calling Verizon is designed to be maddening.

That's pretty much the thing, I think. There really isn't an industry I can think of where the priority is what's best for the customer _specifically_, it's business therefore what's best for the business is always paramount.

[molson]

I fondly remember when my insurance company promptly paid me the amount from my car repair bill out of a Canadian repair shop, but in U.S. Currency, which at the time was worth considerably more than the Canadian currency from the bill. I took it as an insurance settlement offer and I gladly accepted. And it was a time in my life when that accidently generous offer was a big help.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, and no. I mean, can we agree that it is deliberately opaque? I mean, it's akin to the cliche that if the next iTunes EULA said they could have your firstborn, tens of thousands would have clicked "Yes" (before it was discovered by the internet and probably even longer if it was buried in page 24 of lawyer language). Yes, yes, I'm paying money for it, but I'm not a lawyer, and it's unrealistic to expect anyone to afford to retain a lawyer to read over every single document you've ever signed. There has to be a degree of expecting what is in the contract is reasonable.

And we're not even getting into things like the whole confusion between, say, flood vs windstorm coverage during a hurricane or whatnot. But if you wanted to try and do your due diligence and find clarity, an insurance agent is the person best equipped to tell you about the difference between products. However, they're also incentivized to work against your self interest. His or her best outcome is to have you pay more money for things the company never has to pay out.

As to the whole thing about used parts vs non-used parts - it's not something I had really thought about. But has it always been this way? In the past was it industry standard to use factory parts but has shifted away? Was it one of those things where one company did it to cut corners and then when everyone else saw they could get away with it or make more money with a "new parts rider", the other major companies followed suit. It feels like the insurance equivalent of "right-sizing" in the way that, say, salad dressing bottles or cereal boxes keep getting smaller so the producer can charge the same for less product. However, with insurance, it's something you hope to never have to use or maybe once a decade as opposed to the obvious visible changes with a product that you buy many times a year.

I don't believe the average insurance underwriter or adjuster is setting out to screw people on a daily basis. But I bet they're incentivized to do it, so, as a whole, it's done. Write too many claims, don't grind out every last cent, don't upsell products a customer doesn't need, and you're out of a job. And it's certainly not unique to the insurance industry - most major industries have this problem now because there's no oversight or penalties. But the insurance industries also don't get a pass for it and because of its inherent conflict of interest (a money product solely balanced paying out vs premiums), it's perfect to flourish in this time of corrupt complexity.

SI

Eh, I dunno. everyone is provided a declarations page which is like a summary of your policy. Yet plenty of people, daily, didn't understand the concept of a deductible then would get mad at you for charging them $500 to get their car fixed. You could explain until you were blue in the face you weren't charging them anything, didn't matter, they still thought that money went to the insurance company. Same with a rental, they just assumed they would get one when in reality its a separate coverage, or they drive a mini van but only have X/day coverage for a rental car that won't cover the cost of a mini van.

I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would imagine a large portion of people don't use an agent. They play with the sliders on various websites until they find a rate they can afford.

As for parts, not sure when that started but if new parts were always used premiums would be sky high. There are rules to what parts you can use based on model year of the car being repaired, miles, etc...certain parts had to be new for safety reasons, etc..People would still bitch about it daily and say "I don't want a used bumper on my car" to which I would reply "why not, the one that was on there is also used?" After market parts were a little dicier, but all these things are in the law and have been litigated, so good luck. It is in the wording. The insurance company is responsible for paying to have your car returned to pre loss condition.

As for incentives. When I worked in claims there was no incentive to pay out fewer claims and I am guessing that would be illegal. When I worked on the property damage side we were rated on what we paid for the repairs. We had to document all the damage via pictures and notes, then pay out accordingly. Periodically your estimates would be reviewed and if the reviewer disagreed with your decision you were dinged. You could claim that is incentive to write less time for necessary repairs, etc...but not really because at the end of the day you have to come to an agreement with the bodyshop to do the actual repairs. The insurance company wants to pay the least possible the body shop wants to get the most possible. Usually you meet in the middle. As a side note, you want to talk about immoral fuckers, body shops are shady AF.

The bottom line is car insurance companies tend to get a bad rap, at times justified, because it is a shitty situation that no one wants to be in. Swaggs touched on it. People always think their shit is worth more than it is, or they should be compensated for their time, inconvenience, etc...I genuially wanted to help the people I had claims with. I would listen to them, address their needs and questions best I could, and I would say majority of the time their anger is misdirected.

[DirkGildun]

After many years working as an IT person for manufacturing or retail companies, I got a job as an IT development contractor at a large national insurance company (during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in Florida).


The company had an internal website that daily showed the insurance news of the day. After years of hearing about income and expenses at the manufacturing and retail companies, my eyes were opened when I found out that insurance companies considered any monies they paid out in claims were known as "losses".


That showed me what their thinking was.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I'm not sure that this is still the case, but I worked for an insurance company right out of college in the early 2000's, and there was a percentage cap that the insurance had to spend on claims. I believe it is enforced by state law, so insurance companies cannot screw people over (too badly). I was trying to Google to see what it is/was and I think it is called the 'Combined Ratio,' but I couldn't find actual numbers to be certain. Basically, the Combined Ratio is (Losses + Expenses)/Premiums. So, the insurance companies have to spend a certain amount on claims - it wasn't like we were ever told to lowball or anything like that. In fact, property damage (car or house or item values were usually the least of our concern, as long as the repairs or replacement was done and there was no fraud) was the least of our worries - the much bigger and more variable expenses were injuries and pain and suffering, as they can potentially get into the courtroom and balloon to really high numbers, whereas property always has a pretty fixed cap on its value.

It varies by state, of course, but profits, investments, expenses, claims, etc., are heavily regulated. Some states require periodic reporting (in addition to quarterly and annually) of loss ratio (which is essentially a ratio of claims paid/incurred losses to earned premiums) for auto and homeowners insurance so the DOI can determine if companies are doing too well (to force a rate decrease). Combined ratio helps to assess a company's profitability by adding expenses to the equation (loss+ expenses/premiums).

And then you break down claims to LAE and ULAE (loss adjustment expenses, either allocated to particular claims or unallocated (things like overhead, salaries, etc.)). And then you've got IBNR, which is a calculation of claims expense that has been incurred but not yet reported to the company, which is used to ensure companies have sufficient reserves to pay claims in the future.

Believe me, they slice this shit six ways to Sunday to evaluate companies.

[JPhillips]

After two and a half months and a complaint to the NY Department of Financial Services we finally came to a settlement. They could have saved a lot of time and money with this settlement based on their comps if they would have taken it earlier. Now we wait for the deductible reimbursement and shop for a new provider.