Table of Content
Insurance thrives on a simple promise: when disaster strikes, the insurer will pay what is rightfully owed—promptly, fairly, and fully. Yet there are times when that promise is betrayed. Instead of serving as a shield against catastrophe, some insurers manipulate the claims process to boost profits.
When companies engage in the strategy known as “delay, deny, defend,” they distort the very foundation of insurance. Delay tactics wear down desperate claimants; denials force prolonged battles; aggressive legal defenses drain time and morale. This betrayal turns insurance from a promise into a burden, shaking the public’s faith in a system built on trust.
Insurers, despite legal obligations and public claims of fairness, sometimes prioritize their own bottom lines over their contractual duties. Delaying payments allows companies to hold onto premium dollars longer, profiting from investments during the interim. Each day a claim remains unpaid generates additional income—small for one case, substantial when multiplied across millions.
Victims, often facing urgent financial needs due to injury or property loss, are pressured to accept lower settlements just to survive. Every delay increases that pressure, turning the claimant’s vulnerability into corporate leverage.
Strategies That Undermine Trust
Real-world stories illustrate these tactics starkly. Take Kim Zilisch, a CPA candidate gravely injured by a drag racer. State Farm, her insurer, delayed her underinsured motorist claim for nearly a year, despite clear medical evidence. Their adjuster requested redundant information, waited unnecessarily for nonexistent reports, and subjected Zilisch to multiple examinations—all tactics designed to defer payment. It took an arbitration award and a bad faith lawsuit for Zilisch to receive the full benefits she deserved.
Theodore Price’s experience was even more drawn out. After being struck by an uninsured driver, Price spent years submitting medical records and documentation to New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance, only to be stonewalled. The company’s endless requests for redundant information dragged on so long that they attempted to use the statute of limitations to deny his claim entirely. Only a Supreme Court ruling rescued Price from this calculated injustice.
Homeowners suffer similar fates. Terry Buttery, whose home was vandalized, faced an onslaught of demands from Hamilton Mutual for proofs, receipts, tax returns, and sworn testimonies. Despite providing everything asked, Buttery waited nearly four years for payment, only succeeding after multiple lawsuits and threats against the insurer’s appeal bond.
Delay often leads naturally to outright denial. Denying valid claims saves insurers money directly. Tactics include unreasonable interpretations of policy language, excessive scrutiny of medical reports, and psychological warfare intended to wear down policyholders into abandoning legitimate claims.
Kristen Dhyne and Reagan Wilson both encountered blatant denials. Dhyne’s insurer, State Farm, misrepresented her coverage and dissuaded her from pursuing her rightful claim. Wilson’s injuries were downplayed by her insurer, who fabricated alternative explanations for her pain despite clear medical evidence linking her condition to the accident.
In extreme cases, insurers overstep legal and ethical boundaries. Progressive’s investigators infiltrated a church’s confidential support sessions under false pretenses, breaching sacred trust and personal privacy—all in pursuit of discrediting a brain injury victim’s claim.
Real Cases of Bad Faith Insurance Practices
Marc Goddard’s case shows how far insurers will go. After Goddard was killed in a collision clearly caused by a drunk driver, Farmers Insurance still refused to settle. Even as criminal convictions mounted and liability became irrefutable, Farmers stonewalled negotiations, altered internal evaluations, and ultimately faced millions in punitive damages for their bad faith tactics.
The tragedy of Leslie Joe Nance echoes the same themes. After being severely injured in an accident not of his making, Nance faced years of stonewalling from Kentucky National. They fabricated baseless allegations about faulty brakes and speeding, subjected him to unnecessary examinations, and stalked him with private investigators. The insurer delayed, denied, and defended relentlessly, forcing Nance into financial ruin before offering an insultingly low settlement.
These are not isolated incidents. Across America, injured victims, bereaved families, and struggling homeowners confront systemic resistance from insurers who calculate that few will have the resources or endurance to fight prolonged litigation. Those who persist often win—but at great personal cost.
Litigation strategies like “DOLF” (Defense Of Litigated Files) and “SFXOL” (Settle For X Or Litigate) are industry-standard tactics designed to grind claimants down. In MIST (Minor Impact, Soft Tissue) cases, insurers spend more fighting claims than settling them—simply to discourage future claims. Justice, in such systems, becomes less about merit and more about endurance and financial stamina.
How Delay and Defense Break Consumers
The effects of delay, denial, and defense ripple far beyond the courtroom. Victims sell homes, drain retirement savings, sacrifice children’s college funds, and endure years of psychological stress. Insurance—meant to provide peace of mind—becomes a source of profound instability.
Data on the true extent of these practices is scarce—intentionally so. Industry groups dismiss media exposés and lawsuit numbers as “anecdotal,” yet resist transparency about claims handling and litigation statistics. Rare glimpses, such as State Farm’s disclosure of thousands of bad faith lawsuits in one year alone, hint at a deeper, systemic issue.
Most consumers don’t recognize when they are wronged. The hurdles of “naming, blaming, and claiming” mean that many victims never file complaints or lawsuits. Even when they do, legal costs and time barriers often prevent meaningful redress.
Insurance regulators attempt oversight, but inconsistent definitions and murky complaint data hinder accountability. In states like California, companies may appear to have excellent complaint ratios while hiding thousands of quietly resolved grievances behind bureaucratic classifications.
The lack of transparency perpetuates delay, deny, defend practices. Without public scrutiny, insurers face little deterrent against pushing vulnerable claimants to the edge of endurance.
Why Transparency and Reform Are Essential
Insurance, at its core, is meant to provide security against life’s uncertainties. When companies distort that mission for profit, they undermine not only individual livelihoods but public trust in a crucial societal institution.
Real reform begins with transparency. Insurers must be required to publicly disclose claims processing times, denial rates, litigation frequencies, and settlement outcomes. Regulators must enforce meaningful penalties for bad faith conduct. Courts must continue to recognize and punish exploitative tactics.
Above all, the public must remain vigilant. Consumers must demand better—not only through legal action but through informed policy choices and collective advocacy.
When insurance companies honor their promises, they uphold a social contract that strengthens families, businesses, and communities. When they betray that trust, they erode the very foundation of economic resilience.
It is not enough for insurance to exist. It must work—fairly, promptly, and faithfully. Only then can it fulfill its true promise: to be a safety net woven of collective trust, not a labyrinth of broken commitments.
