The public image of the insurance industry has never been a great one, and we have all heard stories of how “insurers always take the premiums but never pay the claims”. However, the recent Channel 4 programme about fraudulent insurance claims has, in my opinion, confused the issue further as to why the industry is so strict when settling claims.

According to the research conducted by Norwich Union, one in ten claims made are fraudulent, and it appears that the insurance industry has been seen as a ‘soft’ touch and an easy way of making money. The programme showed a number of NU policyholders who had put in a claim and which were subsequently investigated into as being possible fraudulent claims. One particular claim that was investigated was where a policyholder had apparently had her engagement ring stolen from the safe in her room when she was on holiday. However, after investigations into the claim were made, it became clear that her fiancée had taken the ring following a split in their relationship. NU’s claims investigator contacted her ex-fiancée and he gave him the ring, which was then presented to her by the investigator after which she freely admitted that she was trying to obtain money from a fraudulent claim.

In July of 2007, the insurance industry was stretched to the limit following the amount of claims made due to the floods, and this showed the true value of having insurance. However, there was an example of why the insurance industry again is portrayed as being reluctant to ‘pay out’, even when there appears to be a genuine claim. The programmed reported on a claim made for a burglary where the policyholder had nearly £14,000 worth of items stolen. The NU investigator appeared to be suspicious of the claim because of the area and type of property where the policyholder lived. When he interviewed the policyholder, he was provided with receipts for the stolen items and also the policyholder even produced the boxes for each item. Although these items could be fraudulent, it did appear that it was a genuine claim. The point to note was that it had taken NU ten months before the interview took place, and after this, the programme never mentioned whether the claim was settled.

The image portrayed by taking ten months before the policyholder was even interviewed, will be more evidence to general public to view the industry with mistrust, even when the vast majority of claims are settled without any problems at all.

Therefore, my question is how do we turn around the image from being a ‘Foe’ to a ‘Friend’? .