Jump to content

Talk:Insurance fraud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Layout Problem

[edit]

There is a overlapping layout problem with this page. Please check the screenshot.

File:Wikipedia insurance fraud layout problem color reduced.png
Layout Problem.

--Zerothis (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse murders insurance fraud article request

[edit]

Hello, all --

I realize that this is a distasteful subject to many in the horse field, especially among those with a love of show jumpers, but the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair currently in the news has opened up many, many questions on the subject of the late 20th century horse murders scandal. The reason for that, in case you don't know, is that Rielle Hunter was formerly Lisa Druck, whose father, James Druck conspired to have her beloved show jumper Henry the Hawk electrocuted to collect the insurance money on him. This tragedy formed the backgtound for a 1988 novel based on Lisa Druck's life, called Story of my Life by Jay McInerney. Later, in the early to mid 1990s, the scandal was exposed to the public through articles in the New York imes and Sports Illustrated, and then through a full-length book called "Hot Blood." An FBI investigation into the horse murders led to the conviction of a number of highly placed people in the show jumper and general equatrian sports world on charges of insuracne fraud.

When Rielle Hunter's background was probed, due to her affair with John Edwards, it turned out that she and her horse were prominent victims of the horse murder insurance scam. But in trying to link this information up to her bio article, it turned up that there is no article on the subject of the horse murders at Wikipedia, doubtless because the scandal occured before the development of the world wide web. There is an article on the murder of the millionairess Helen Brach whose death, in 1977, was also connected to the horse murder scandal. An article was just created todsay, but it is not comprehensive in scope and needs to be expanded greatly lest it be deleted.

I am looking for a few good editors who have the brackground to write a horse murders article, and to link it to the Helen Brach, show jumping, and Rielle Hunter articles. No need to reply to me -- if you are interested, you know what to do. I will try to help, also, as best i can, but the topic is far from my usual fild of writing, and i would prefer to see it handled by those with the greatest depth of knowledge on the subject.

I am posting this identical request to a number of horse-rleated talk pages, so you may see it more than once, for which i apologize in advance.

Sincerely, catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The first external link listed for this article is to www.insurancefraud.com, operated by a for-profit investigative company. The site may seek to promote the services of an organization, and is certainly not the biggest organization fighting insurance fraud. There is a non-profit major organization in the United States that seeks to fight insurance fraud, the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB). Recommend the current link be replaced with a link to the NICB. Their website is www.nicb.org, and they have a direct link on their site where you can report insurance fraud (https://www.nicb.org/cps/rde/xchg/nicb/hs.xsl/3199.htm).

Sirubberduckie (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today (27 August 2009) I added a link to NICB and a reference to reporting services they offer on their site - I would like to see another editor review and decide if it should be moved. I'd like to see a small section about reporting insurance fraud and/or a link to a new Wikipedia page which can be populated with links to insurance fraud reporting resources for each US state fraud bureau, (and any international ones), law enforcement, non-profit, and possibly even for-profit reporting companies. I am not planning on adding it myself (but would be happy to help populate it if someone else added it) because of my affiliation with an insurance-related not-for-profit company.

Eisolson (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the links, e.g., 2-4, also do not appear to be properly set up. They reference id tags but clicking on them isn't helpful. Perhaps someone knows what to make of their setup and can improve the usage.Czrisher (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition in the intro

[edit]

What do you call it when the insurer commits fraud to deny payment? Is that still called insurance fraud? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.196.235 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. And this article needs to be expanded to cover fraud by insurance companies. As far as I can tell, there is not a separate article on that topic.Bill (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous information removed in Legislation Section

[edit]

Edited a statement which claimed that insurance fraud was only criminalized in 48 of 50 US states. The source it points to indicates that its criminalized in all states, just to a varying degree.Napkin65 (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Companies who Defraud

[edit]

This article concentrates on customers defrauding the insurance industry. To balance the article do you not think comment and information about the insurance industry defrauding their customers is in order here too:- Money Saving Expert [1], MSN Money [2], CorpWatch [3] etc...
I have no doubt Wiki members may find many documented examples of how the insurance industry defraud customers. From an individual levels like righting your car off after an accident when not truly a right-off, to a corporate levels like pumping premiums up claiming losses but making billions in profits or selling your details to unscrupulous third parties companies or mailing groups.... or even selling insurance customers don't need or want - PPI for instance.
Is anyone up for the challenge to balance this article.... after all the Financial Services Industry are quick to point the finger when it suits them financially or image wise but never admit they have been at it too.HuttonIT (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Insurance fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation to in-depth article on law firm website

[edit]

There currently appears to be a debate about whether citations to law firm websites should be 100% removed regardless of the value and unique content on the website that is serving as a source for new content. I am creating this talk discussion in part because of the back-and-forth between Arlaw and Legalwriter1976 (me) and to comply with the conflict resolution steps outlined in the Wikipedia Edit Warring page. Namely, there is a push to reaching consensus instead of just editing back and forth. The example in question for this page involves unique, relevant content that cites to a long and in-depth article about insurance fraud defense that is hosted on a law firm website. Compare the article in question to common law firm spam pages that only have 300-500 words. The citation is the actual source for the added content, and the only reason the content and citation appears to have been removed is that the article is on a law firm website. Looking at Arlaw's list of edits/contributions to other pages, it is clear that he/she is doing a great job removing link spam. In the context of this page and upon closer examination, the value added here is not link spam however.

Legalwriter1976 (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to add your law firm page to this article. However, you need to take note of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. It is not enough that you self-published your article on your law firm site. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Also, while your article may be long and in many ways substantive, it is peppered with self-promoting claims and statements. I'm not trying to be hard on you, and these are not policies that I created. Arllaw (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legalwriter1976 and Arllaw: there are three questions we need to answer here to resolve this dispute:
  1. Is the added information correct?
  2. Is the added information notable?
  3. Is the cited source reliable?
I see no disagreement between you two about the veracity and notability of the information, which implies that the information, in one form or another, belongs in the article. So the only outstanding issue here is of sourcing. If the information is, indeed, notable, chances are additional sources can be found. It would behoove the two of you to direct your efforts to finding a source more reliable than the one provided, instead of engaging in this revert and re-revert war. Please leave the article in its current (15 August 2017) revision until the matter is resolved here on the Talk page. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 11:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem with anybody adding appropriate material supported by acceptable sources. The history here starts with a July 18 edit that substituted a different source for a link to the spolinlaw website; spolinlaw was soon again added as a reference to support a different point, with a substitution of references on August 13 that led to the instant discussion. If any edit of the source is going to be followed by the insertion of spolinlaw as a reference elsewhere in the article, or reversions to prior versions of the article that reference spolinlaw, this never ends. Arllaw (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see no reason to substitute sources at this point. However, the Parker/Smith source is still there; is something else missing? Both of you are welcome to add relevant sources. Then, let's examine source reliability and self-promotional aspects, and trim down the list if needed. The potential harm from having an abundance of possibly low-quality sources is lower than that of leaving out anything. Owen× ☎ 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The spolinlaw page is not being used to support a specific legal point. It's being used to give an example of something that can happen during the course of an insurance investigation. For the specific example, as it is tailored to the specific page at issue (the ostensible justification for the use of that page as the reference), trying to find reliable sources using the exact same example would not be a good use of time. In terms of adding other examples, I am skeptical that even if I added dozens of examples backed by solid references, Legalwriter1976 would agree that the example as specifically stated on his site was superfluous. Arllaw (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and tend to agree. If we deem that example to be superfluous, we'll remove it and the corresponding source. It'll be nice if we can get Legalwriter1976 to agree, but ultimately, all we need is consensus, not unanimity. Common sense, policy, and good editing practices will prevail. Owen× ☎ 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance
  2. ^ http://money.uk.msn.com/money-guides/insurance/home-insurance/home-insurance-mis-selling-a-new-scandal-on-the-horizon
  3. ^ http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12569
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Insurance fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Obligation

[edit]

This WIKI is clearly bias toward insurance companies. Insurance companies can commit insurance fraud and do on a regular basis. Appraisers accept bribes for overwritten settlements all the time, for steering work toward a specific shop for financial gain, for intentionally underwriting claims as a deterrent to commit insurance fraud, which by all measures if this practice is adopted systematically defrauds consumers. Why aren’t these clear examples of insurance fraud not permitted? They keep getting erased. 2600:6C64:427F:BDA2:987C:11DF:1BD2:63F9 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to place content in the proper articles, under proper subjects, with appropriate support from reliable sources. You cannot simply insert off-topic material into articles, fail to support it or pretend to support it with references that will fail verification, and expect your additions to stay in place. There are articles such as Insurance bad faith that discuss bad conduct by insurance companies. Arllaw (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insurance_fraud&oldid=1207722312"