Fifteen years ago, Berkshire/Guardian used to be a decent, fair-minded insurance company, but like all others who merge, the tide changes and insurers always seem to become like each other – unfair and downright nasty at times.
Guardian is now the awful stereotype of an insurance company that reviews claims to deny rather than to pay. In my dealings with the company, claims handlers document and report everything in the most adverse and negative way they can. Don’t get me wrong, there are a few specialists at Guardian who are great to work with, but by far, the majority of what Guardian does in the review process sets up insureds (and claimants) for failure, or “stacking the deck” like all others.
Guardian’s budget for investigative tactics must be the most expensive claims cost on its P&L, since claims are over investigated, often violating insureds’ privacy. While insurers are permitted to investigate claims, Guardian’s tactics are over the top, when claims handlers check the “FBI’s most wanted list” everyday.
What I object to most, however, is the overall nastiness of various claims handlers who, from the beginning, presume insureds are being deceptive, and go out of their way to be downright nasty. After all, the identifying mark of a fair insurance company is a clear path of investigation to PAY claims rather than deny them. Claims handlers at Guardian seem to have a mind set that “everyone is dishonest and are filing claims for secondary gain.”
Statistically, most insureds file claims of “merit” and only 20% of claims submitted for review are found to be deceptive.This means that Guardian is paying premium fixed and overhead costs to find the 20% fraudulent claims at the expense of the 80% who are filing legitimate claims. Although treating honest insureds like dirt is not good for business, Guardian’s tendency to over-use investigative tactics has been in play for the last several years.
In my opinion, claims handlers anywhere who operate on the “nasty” should be removed from their jobs. Of course it’s not good business to allow the deliberately hired “A” personalities to insult those who are ill and helpless. I have no respect for management when “nasty” is permitted because in the end it’s profitable. After all, a very ill insured will in fact “just go away” when confronted with a bully claims handler.
As a result, Guardian’s public reputation has been diminished by its own change to investigative tactics that deliberately intend to deny rather than to pay. In my opinion, prospective IDI insureds looking to buy disability insurance should consider Northwestern Mutual or Principal over Guardian.
NWM and Principal’s claims handlers go far beyond what is expected to “assist” and render fair and equitable claim reviews. Guardian’s nasty way of handling things will potentially be its undoing in the future.
