The Hartford And Surveillance That Could Be Illegal

Surveillance1It’s hard to know exactly what is, and what isn’t legal these days. Or, if things ARE illegal who will be prosecuted and what “over the top” really means. How is it possible to say what surveillance is legally allowed, when no one is held accountable to play by the rules?

Reports have been coming in to DCS that The Hartford is engaging in what is described to me as “underhanded illegal surveillance.” I’ve known for quite some time that The Hartford stepped up its investigative tactics assigning at least three people to each claim, one of which is a private investigator. While at one time The Hartford only employed 16 investigators, I’m told there are now over 60.

I also know that Hartford’s claims handlers, like Unum’s, are programmed with a fraudulent malingering mindset that presumes everyone with a claim is out for secondary gain. One of Hartford’s claims handlers told me, “You just don’t know how many people are trying to cheat us. Most of them are no better than thieves.”

Unum’s perspective is a bit different said one Unum manager on her FB page, “Insureds are like Slinkys, they aren’t worth very much, but everyone likes to see one tumble-down the stairs every now and then.” Attitudes like these are programmed into company employees who know it’s either their employer’s way or the highway.

A few sources are reporting Amazon’s Alexa boxes and other home appliances like TV screens, computers, and phones provide the means for spying, not just by insurance companies, but by government agencies, and social media itself. The problem isn’t just that insurance companies are spying on their insureds, it’s that the American public is spied on by nearly every imaginable source.

Specifically, insureds contacting me are often harassed by The Hartford’s surveillance to the point of being frantic, mistrustful, and extremely worried about their benefits. Apparently, The Hartford’s methods are so frequently imposed, some of their own claimants describe Hartford’s activity as “stalking.” The difference between surveillance and stalking is that insurance stalking is an attempt to terrorize insureds to the point that it is likely they would withdraw their claims – an easy way out for The Hartford.

In most other claims areas, The Hartford’s claims management process is very much like Unum’s. Since most of the company’s executive management hailed from Unum’s old Dickinson & Holt subsidiary, claims practices between the two companies remained basically the same. However, in recent years The Hartford made decisions to engage in surveillance to the point of insured harassment.

Surveillance technology today unleashed a tremendous boon in the frequency and nature of “listening in”, “tailing”, and “spying” on unsuspecting insureds, or even insureds who KNOW they are being tapped, but don’t care. I am not an expert on the technology of surveillance, but it makes sense to me that insurance investigators will use every means “to catch you” even if it could be considered illegal in some states.

Clearly, The Hartford is “way out there” with its investigation of claims. Those with ¬†Hartford Plans might want to take notice and protect themselves from invasions of privacy that are likely to be on the horizon.

And please, everyone should know by now that social media is the largest insurance spy network in the world. Those on claim should NOT be posting family information anywhere on the Net if they plan to keep their claims.