Ignore: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Of those valid 500 claimants, 450 will have open-and-shut cases. Fifty will be somewhat arguable but, ultimately — if it ever went to court — the insurer will have to pay. Nonetheless a rational but unempathetic insurer should, at first, ''decline'' those claims. | Of those valid 500 claimants, 450 will have open-and-shut cases. Fifty will be somewhat arguable but, ultimately — if it ever went to court — the insurer will have to pay. Nonetheless a rational but unempathetic insurer should, at first, ''decline'' those claims. | ||
Now, insurers are bound by obligations of [[Uberrima fides|utmost good faith]], and there are deterrents to acting unconscionably — regulations, consumer watchdogs, ombudspeople and ultimately legal action — but, basically, ''so what'': the insurer can settle the moment these agencies get involved. The option it is exercising is seeing whether the customers will invoke those mechanisms. Statistically, some portion of these valid claimants won’t: they will be put off by the rejection, or just the insurer’s silence, and never make any complaint. If | Now, insurers are bound by obligations of [[Uberrima fides|utmost good faith]], and there are deterrents to acting unconscionably — regulations, consumer watchdogs, ombudspeople and ultimately legal action — but, basically, ''so what'': the insurer can settle the moment these agencies get involved. The option it is exercising is seeing whether the customers will invoke those mechanisms. Statistically, some portion of these valid claimants won’t: they will be put off by the rejection, or just the insurer’s silence, and never make any complaint. If a customer doesn’t press its claim, the insurer will not have to pay. | ||
Any such cases represent pure profit for the insurer. | Any such cases represent pure profit for the insurer. | ||
====Ignorance as a data-defeat device==== | |||
Then there is run-of-the-mill organisational ignorance, as a strategy for forcing one’s own agenda whilst giving the impression of consultation and collaboration. There is no better example of this that {{poh}}, wherein countless smoking guns were levelled at implicated personal in the executive who, through the simple expedient of ''ignoring'' them on the record, were able, in ensuing years, to plead ignorance to them. [[Terry’s law]] — “[[What the eye don’t see the chef gets away with]]” — through the prism of Kannehman’s “What you see is all there is” means there is a real premium for the executive who knows how to “leave a ball outside off stump”. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Financialisation]] | |||
*[[Iatrogenic]] | *[[Iatrogenic]] | ||
*[[Software-as-a-service]] | *[[Software-as-a-service]] | ||
*[[Insurance]] | *[[Insurance]] | ||