Facebook Pixel


72 Ways Insurance Companies Cheat and Lie

start your free consultation
Home 72 Ways Insurance Companies Cheat and Lie

72 Ways Insurance Companies Cheat and Lie


Insurance companies often employ various cunning tactics to thwart the claims of individuals seeking rightful compensation for their injuries. In the following sections, we will explore the various defenses that insurance companies commonly employ to hinder your pursuit of fair and just reparation for the harm you have suffered. These tactics are designed to challenge and sometimes deny your claims, making it essential to understand and prepare for the potential hurdles that may arise during your quest for compensation.

  1. The plaintiff’s vehicle lacks essential safety features, and it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to furnish the vehicle with these necessary components.
  2. Seat belts or other safety devices are available in the vehicle but were not used by the plaintiff.
  3. Equipment defects in the plaintiff’s vehicle: bald tires, brakes not working, tail lights not working, turn signals not working.
  4. The plaintiff’s capacity to drive and their perception were compromised due to the consumption of alcohol, medication, or illicit substances.
  5. The plaintiff had a hearing or vision defect and wasn’t wearing glasses or a hearing aid.
  6. The plaintiff’s physical defect impaired his driving ability and perception.
  7. The plaintiff is under the doctor’s orders not to drive.
  8. The plaintiff is not licensed to drive or drive with a suspended license.
  9. The plaintiff didn’t notice the defendant until or immediately before impact and, therefore, was inattentive.
  10. The plaintiff’s account of the timings, speeds, and distances involved appears to be significantly inaccurate, raising questions about their attentiveness or competence while driving. As a result, their credibility is, at the very least, diminished.
  11. The plaintiff exaggerates the defendant’s speed and other facts surrounding accidents to diminish their credibility, making them unreliable or unbelievable witnesses.
  12. The plaintiff had been warned of danger within a sufficient time to avoid the accident if paying attention.
  13. The plaintiff could have avoided the accident without exceeding safe speed for conditions.
  14. The plaintiff made an unnecessary and unexpected stop.
  15. The plaintiff made an unsafe lane change without warning.
  16. The plaintiff gave no stop or turn signal.
  17. Under the given circumstances and/or in a location where a reasonable individual would not have foreseen such actions or where they posed visibility challenges for the defendant, the plaintiff reversed their vehicle.
  18. The plaintiff was not at the intersection first.
  19. If the plaintiff and defendant are in the intersection simultaneously, the plaintiff was to the defendant’s left or exceed the speed limit, safe speed, or inattentive.
  20. The plaintiff makes a poor appearance as a witness.
  21. The plaintiff encounters challenges when verbally recounting the circumstances of the accident.
  22. The defendant acted as a “reasonable person” in the operation of their vehicle, including safe speed for conditions, and therefore not negligent, i.e., the defendant’s conduct was not probable cause of the accident.
  23. An act of God or unknown reason was responsible for the accident.
  24. No independent witnesses substantiated the plaintiff’s version of the accident, or witnesses cannot be found (the plaintiff, not the defendant, has a legal duty to prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” each element of their case.)
  25. Witnesses dispute the plaintiff’s version of facts or substantiate the defendant’s version.
  26. Investigating police officers make errors in their report or erroneous conclusions, disputing the plaintiff’s version of the accident.
  27. Physical evidence was lost, as it was necessary to examine it by an expert to substantiate the plaintiff’s version of the facts.
  28. The plaintiff chose not to enlist an expert’s assistance to validate the other parties’ negligence.
  29. The absence of a police presence at the scene suggests there were minimal or no reported injuries.
  30. There was no complaint of pain at the accident scene by the plaintiff to anyone.
  31. There is no indication on the police report that the plaintiff complains of pain at the scene.
  32. There are no objective signs of injury at the accident scene, like cuts, bruises, etc.
  33. There was no request by the plaintiff at the scene for an ambulance.
  34. The plaintiff was not examined at an emergency room on the day of the accident or soon after.
  35. There was minimal property damage to either or both vehicles involved.
  36. The plaintiff’s car is outfitted with shock-absorbent bumpers, and they were also utilizing headrests and seat belts, significantly reducing the likelihood of impact injuries.
  37. No other persons involved in the accident had injuries.
  38. The plaintiff did not seek medical treatment significantly after the accident.
  39. The plaintiff provided inaccurate medical and/or employment history information to the insurance company.
  40. No medical opinion substantiates medical causation between the accident and the plaintiff’s medical complaints.
  41. Shortly following the accident, the plaintiff’s physical and health condition reverted to its state just before the incident.
  42. The plaintiff had previously reported issues and sought treatment for the same areas of their body that were claimed to have been injured in the accident. Their post-accident complaints remained consistent with their prior concerns.
  43. The plaintiff suffered a subsequent injury, leading to ongoing issues.
  44. The plaintiff exaggerates complaints related to the accident per their medical records.
  45. The plaintiff’s complaints to the doctor were minimal.
  46. Per medical records, the plaintiff’s complaints to the doctor were bizarre, exaggerated, and lengthy.
  47. The plaintiff’s complaints to one doctor differ from those of other doctors.
  48. The plaintiff had a full range of motion at the physical examination.
  49. The plaintiff had no complaint of pain at the physical examination.
  50. The plaintiff was observed moving usually while not being examined by a doctor.
  51. The plaintiff’s family physician assessed the injuries as minimal and did not recommend specific treatments, including physical therapy. Furthermore, the doctor did not schedule a follow-up appointment or advise the plaintiff to return in case of ongoing pain. Consequently, the plaintiff did not have any further consultations with the doctor.
  52. The plaintiff’s injuries are totally “subjective.” i.e., no indication of injury from orthopedic tests, x-rays, or observation.
  53. The plaintiff underwent limited medical treatment for a brief duration following the accident.
  54. The plaintiff’s doctor is no longer in the area or otherwise unavailable.
  55. The plaintiff was examined by a doctor recommended by the insurance company soon after the accident and was found uninjured and not needing treatment.
  56. The plaintiff had a history of chronic complaints as documented in previous medical records, or they may have unrelated medical conditions such as arthritis or congenital issues like spondylosis.
  57. The expense incurred for the treatment was substantial. Furthermore, the duration of the plaintiff’s treatment exceeded what is typically expected in the community regarding standard charges for such services and the average recovery period for similar injuries.
  58. The plaintiff disregarded their doctor’s advice and went to work, consequently worsening their injury and potentially extending their period of disability and treatment.
  59. Although the plaintiff’s doctor did not advise taking time off from work, the plaintiff opted to do so.
  60. No medical professional has indicated that the plaintiff must take time off from work.
  61. The plaintiff had a poor attendance record at work before the accident.
  62. The plaintiff would have been terminated or laid off even without the accident.
  63. The plaintiff had no job at the time of the accident and can’t substantiate that they were applying at various places.
  64. The plaintiff’s earnings per W-2 and tax records indicate a more minor earnings history than claimed.
  65. The plaintiff paid by cash for prior employment, can’t document past earnings, and/or has no tax returns.
  66. The plaintiff’s alleged employer has no official record (i.e., W-2 Form) or other means to substantiate the plaintiff’s employment.
  67. The plaintiff lets various “Statutes of Limitations” run, thereby foreclosing the possibility of recovering anything for their claim.
  68. The plaintiff was partially at fault and should recover less under the Comparative Fault laws.
  69. The plaintiff has a history of filing lawsuits to collect compensation.
  70. The plaintiff has a history of mental illness or emotional problems, making them unreliable.
  71. The plaintiff made a statement to the insurance company that they were not injured in the accident,
  72. The plaintiff failed to give proper and timely notice to governmental bodies. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim is barred.

Many more exist! The responsibility of the insurance adjuster is to uncover and identify numerous defenses and arguments within your case. Allow us to offer our assistance and protection. You can contact us through our online contact form or at (916) 921-6400 to arrange a complimentary consultation.

Get an Attorney Who Knows How to Win

We’ve been handling car accident cases and claims against insurance companies since 1982, and we have come to learn just what it takes to help you win your claim. So, if you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, call our injury lawyers today for free and friendly advice. We can be reached at (916) 921-6400 or (800) 404-5400.

Editor’s Note: updated 11.45.23 Image by Roland Schwerdhöfer from Pixabay