[K-Dog]

This is a true sign of collapse.

WSJ.COM • 2026-05-30

The Home-Insurance Coin Flip: Nearly Half of Claims Result in Zero Payout

Home insurers pitch policies as a financial peace-of-mind safety net, but in a disaster customers can find the apparent guarantee of compensation evaporates.

Insurance companies will be the first to fully embrace A.I.  It is the perfect way to deny claims.  While everyone else is using A.I. to simply log customer complaints in the round file, insurance companies will be ruining lives.

RAPIDCLAIMS.AI • 2026-01-08

Average Claim Denial Rate in 2026: Benchmarks and Key Drivers

Claim denials continue to rise as payer policies evolve and clinical documentation requirements become more detailed and tightly enforced.

LOUISLAWGROUP.COM • 2026-04-21

These 16 Insurance Companies Denied Over Half of All Homeowner Claims in 2025

16 major insurers closed 50-78% of homeowner claims with zero payment in 2025.

[RE]

This is a true sign of collapse.


Insurance companies will be the first to fully embrace A.I.  It is the perfect way to deny claims.  While everyone else is using A.I. to simply log customer complaints in the round file, insurance companies will be ruining lives.

I have always considered insurance to be a total ripoff.  My one experience was with my one and only New Car I bought with my ex-wife.  I had to carry a full policy including repairs and collision besides liability and when the tranny quit they refused to pay for it because I didn't have all the receipts for my engine oil changes, which I did myself. Never mind I kept a log book of all the changes and engine oil has nothing to do with a tranny failure.  After that, I only carried liability, and only for a couple of months when I had to renew my registration.  Otherwise, I drove the other 50 years of my driving life uninsured, except for my trucking years where the company I leased to picked up the tab.  I saved over $50K in premium payments this way just on liability, double that if you include collision, repairs, fire and theft.  Fortunately of course I was a fabulous driver and went accident free my entire life, including 1M miles behind the wheel of a big rig.  Never carried any other type of insurance..

The whole biz model is designed around refusing claims.  The more claims they refuse, the bigger the profits.  There is no other way for the biz to make money, other than taking the money you pay and either investing it or handing out loans.

AI will definitely make getting claims paid in disputes, where it is already almost impossible to win.  The Insurance Company holds all the cards and a huge legaL dept stuffed with Harvard and Yale Law School grads while you have Jo Schmo from Devry Night School who you met at the bar and handled your divorce. LOL.  I'm sure their IT depts are now also stuffed with AI algo designers from Cal Tech and MIT working day and night with their own AI Agents designing new algos to rip you off while they burn gigawatts of electricity on supercomputers raising your power bill for your McMansion and EV car while they do it.

The answer to insurance company rip offs is simple.  Don't own anything worth insuring. 😀  For me, even my life isn't worth insuring.  lol,

RE

[TDoS]

The answer to insurance company rip offs is simple.  Don't own anything worth insuring. 😀  For me, even my life isn't worth insuring.  lol,[/color]
RE

Interesting experiences with insurance you've had.

Every insurance claim I've ever made has been paid in full. Motorcycle crash into a car resulting in substantial damage to their cage and my totalled motorcycle with a loan, all paid before I was able to sit down comfortably after the fracture of the spine. Every windshield that ever got cracked on my cars, including the 3 the daughter collected in just 8 months while in college. OTHER insurance companies of folks who totalled my cars paid up without complaint. Never had an issue. Doesn't mean I won't have one of course. No problem with medical insurance either, come to think of it. Mine, my parents as I handled their affairs, the daughters home owner insurance when she had an issue....still a small sample size but....markedly different than yours RE.

 

[RE]

still a small sample size but....markedly different than yours RE.

We can consider your experiences and mine as outliers.  The official stats say 50% of claims are rejected.  IOW, it's basically a coin toss on getting paid.  Not buying insurance, I am 100% guaranteed not to spend money on it, and no legal battles trying to get paid off.  Of course there was a risk I would have an accident at some point, but I considered it negligible.  Certainly far less than what actuarial tables said it was, which is what the premium cost is based on.  So even with an "honest" Insurance company, the cost was a ripoff.

RE

[TDoS]

still a small sample size but....markedly different than yours RE.

We can consider your experiences and mine as outliers.

You can maybe. I do statistics for a living....two of us don't a reasonable sample size make.

The official stats say 50% of claims are rejected.  IOW, it's basically a coin toss on getting paid.

Statistics can lie, and liars use statistics. Whom are we calling "official" stats? Sources matter of course, as peak oil taught all of us.

But let us assume your stat is correct. For starters, the stat of 50/50 could be true....now lets talk dependencies. I use Insurance A, and you use Insurance B. All of my claims are paid, none of yours. 50/50. INSURANCE isn't an outlier, the COMPANIES are. I have only used a single independent "price matters" insurer in my life. A year or two, until I bought my first motorcycle on a loan, and needed full coverage. Hit a Toyota with it, damaged the Toyota badly, broke my back, totaled the motorcycle. Allstate paid it off, fixed the Toyota, gave me insurance when I replaced it with an identical replacement, no change in insurance rates. Stuck with the big names ever since.

Not buying insurance, I am 100% guaranteed not to spend money on it, and no legal battles trying to get paid off.

That is logical. And so is being sued for whatever you have for someone or something you damage to recoup their losses. Lacking assets means someone can sort of be sue-proof. So my motivations are different from someone angling for that scenario.

Of course there was a risk I would have an accident at some point, but I considered it negligible.

Of course. Discounting high impact, low probability events changes the distribution of outcomes certainly. It is like playing the lottery, except in reverse. What you "consider" it though is irrelevant....life is life. You can be careful, drive safely, and still have a tie rod snap and send you barreling into the path of another semi.

It is a personal choice, certainly.

Certainly far less than what actuarial tables said it was, which is what the premium cost is based on.  So even with an "honest" Insurance company, the cost was a ripoff.
RE

I don't have the statistics that an actuary does on behalf of accidents and whatnot, and of course their job is to make a profit, but I don't need actuary tables to suss out how this game is played. To you, the cost of insurance is a ripoff. To me it is exactly what it represents itself as....a hedge against a form of risk that has ZERO requirement of being known by my, or your, calculation in advance to place our bets. 

[RE]

Sure, shit can happen, but in driving most "accidents" are avoidable, they result from poor decision making of the part of the driver.  The insurance tables price out based on this.  Even discounts for good drivers factor in driver error.  I don't make errors driving, so my rates should reflect the extremely low probability I would ever make a mistake driving.  They don't.  I evaluated my odds of having an accident and bet I wouldn't have one every time I got behind the wheel for 50 years.  I won the bet every time, so obviously I made a good bet. lol.

RE

[K-Dog]

GEOFFREYDEIHL.SUBSTACK.COM • 2026-06-02

Too Big to Not Fail

Wrong. Too big to avoid failure.

Failure is inevitable.

[TDoS]

You, as an exception, most certainly do not define the rule. 

Never said I did.  Just that for me as an individual it made more financial sense to take the risk.  Which as it turnhs out was the corredt decision.  It would have still been true with a few typical accidents as long as the costs came to less than $50K.  The only case not true would be a large liabilitty claim if I killed or hurt someone badly.  For me, I considered that chance negligible, and again I was right.  Had I been wrong,, well the injured party would have been shit out of luck.

RE

[RE]

Oops, sorry, I accidentally overwrote your post instead of replying to it.  Feel free to rewrite it, I won't delete it.

RE