Loss claim on home insurance - lie detector?!

DullGreyGuy

Sea_Shell said:

Who's to say your voice is stressed!?!  A computer?

Some people find using the telephone stressful, or get nervous even if they are only being suspected (quizzed) of something*.  Or you might be exaspierated for being on hold, listening to rubbish music for 20mins!!

Yes, but it's used to decide which claims get more investigation and which go through the low touch route... it on its own isn't used to decline claims. 

Lavon1

Yeah it was very bizarre I had no idea what the purpose of the questionnaire was so I was just answering doing things around the house etc. They called me and wanted me to tell them why it was flagged as a high risk answer but didn’t take into account the other answers about my claim were not flagged at all! Plus given I was telling the truth I couldn’t say why it would flag as high risk as I had no clue and certainly have no knowledge of such technology. I just stupidly thought it was nothing important and then got a really threatening call trying to put me off! 

DullGreyGuy

Lavon1 said:

Yeah it was very bizarre I had no idea what the purpose of the questionnaire was so I was just answering doing things around the house etc. They called me and wanted me to tell them why it was flagged as a high risk answer but didn’t take into account the other answers about my claim were not flagged at all! Plus given I was telling the truth I couldn’t say why it would flag as high risk as I had no clue and certainly have no knowledge of such technology. I just stupidly thought it was nothing important and then got a really threatening call trying to put me off! 

Without knowing what the question was or how you answered it (nor the details of how you lost the item) its very much speculation. 

Didn't use voice stress analysis in my claims days, though some competitors had just started to. The cognitive questioning stuff was all interesting though on how those who have genuinely been through an event respond -v- how someone who has created a fictitious event does. In many cases there are tells and if you poke at it enough they drop themselves in it. 

Listened to the recording of one case where we thought they had made up the whole story and the investigator, now over a month after the alleged incident asked the husband and wife couple individually about the incident with a few more odd questions... did the incident happen before or after the postbox (no idea if a postbox was even on the road) and describe in detail what each were wearing. When they went into graphic detail asked to explain how they remember so clearly. 

Bring the two back together to discuss the discrepancies in the stories and how odd it is that both are totally certain but totally different versions of events very quickly the wife lays into the husband saying she said it was a bad idea to make it up. 

If you are distracted then its possible that introduces delays in your responses or strain in the voice which could be interpreted as you having to make something up on the spot whereas they'd expect someone to be able to immediately respond etc. This is why its only used as a filter and not a decision making tool.

TELLIT01

From my recent experience with a similar claim, they are likely to ask for photographs of you wearing the ring.  That was a struggle for me as I absolutely hate having my photo taken.  Fortunately my wife had insisted on taking a photo when we were on holiday and the ring is clear there.

Lavon1

DullGreyGuy said:

Lavon1 said:

Yeah it was very bizarre I had no idea what the purpose of the questionnaire was so I was just answering doing things around the house etc. They called me and wanted me to tell them why it was flagged as a high risk answer but didn’t take into account the other answers about my claim were not flagged at all! Plus given I was telling the truth I couldn’t say why it would flag as high risk as I had no clue and certainly have no knowledge of such technology. I just stupidly thought it was nothing important and then got a really threatening call trying to put me off! 

Without knowing what the question was or how you answered it (nor the details of how you lost the item) its very much speculation. 

Didn't use voice stress analysis in my claims days, though some competitors had just started to. The cognitive questioning stuff was all interesting though on how those who have genuinely been through an event respond -v- how someone who has created a fictitious event does. In many cases there are tells and if you poke at it enough they drop themselves in it. 

Listened to the recording of one case where we thought they had made up the whole story and the investigator, now over a month after the alleged incident asked the husband and wife couple individually about the incident with a few more odd questions... did the incident happen before or after the postbox (no idea if a postbox was even on the road) and describe in detail what each were wearing. When they went into graphic detail asked to explain how they remember so clearly. 

Bring the two back together to discuss the discrepancies in the stories and how odd it is that both are totally certain but totally different versions of events very quickly the wife lays into the husband saying she said it was a bad idea to make it up. 

If you are distracted then its possible that introduces delays in your responses or strain in the voice which could be interpreted as you having to make something up on the spot whereas they'd expect someone to be able to immediately respond etc. This is why it’s only used as a filter and not a decision making tool.

The question was something about had I added anything onto my claim that wasn’t lost. To which I said no. It’s a claim for a single item the ring that I have lost. I think you’re right in that it’s a filter more so than a decision making tool but they didn’t make it feel that way on the phone. They have assigned someone to investigate now so hopefully I’ll find out more shortly! Thank you for your help 

Lavon1

Thankfully I have a couple of pictures from when we first got engaged as I’m the same with photos! 

MattMattMattUK

Morph4610 said:

Think it's fair to say that insurers are seeing more spurious claims at the moment so are being extra vigilant. Bear in mind that it's very unlikely that a 'lie detector' is guaranteed 100% accurate so it's really used to identify cases which 'might' not be on the level. If you're confident you've been completely straight with them I'd continue with the claim and expect it to be dealt with   

Lie detectors, or polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, so much that if one knows how do they can be easily gamed either way, I took part in research in the UK in 2002 and after a short amount of coaching I was able to lie and have it show as truth, or tell the truth and have it show as a lie (well be interpreted technically, it is supposedly an art, it certainly is not a science).

Sea_Shell said:

Wow.    Hope you get this resolved.

Who's to say your voice is stressed!?!  A computer?

Some people find using the telephone stressful, or get nervous even if they are only being suspected (quizzed) of something*.  Or you might be exaspierated for being on hold, listening to rubbish music for 20mins!!

*Like being pulled over by the police for routine checks...you feel instant guilt, even when you know you've done nothing wrong.

A person or a computer, although I imagine an algorithm would do it more reliably, but as you rightly point out all it indicates is a level of stress, which may or may not be connected to the call and even if it is connected to the call it may not be related to the caller lying. 

TSx

I would continue with the claims process - ultimately a loss claim is difficult to prove, and the expectation is unless the insurer can prove there is an element of fraud, the claim should be paid (or the ring replaced).

Following conclusion of the claim I would be making a formal complaint - whilst use of these tools is reasonable (in my view), the insurer should not introduce unreasonable post sales barriers to using the product (i.e making a claim) and suggesting that there is something suspicious but they can't say what so maybe you'd like to withdraw your claim would certainly see this as a barrier.

The insurer should be using these tools to inform their investigation, not to try and scare a customer. I have done cognitive interviewing for a home insurer and have successfully identified fraud - but it is fairly common to invite an insured to withdraw a claim rather than proceed with further investigation - however this should always be done on the basis of outlined discrepancies in the account which you can talk through, rather than a vague 'your voice sounded strange'.

Lavon1

TSx said:

I would continue with the claims process - ultimately a loss claim is difficult to prove, and the expectation is unless the insurer can prove there is an element of fraud, the claim should be paid (or the ring replaced).

Following conclusion of the claim I would be making a formal complaint - whilst use of these tools is reasonable (in my view), the insurer should not introduce unreasonable post sales barriers to using the product (i.e making a claim) and suggesting that there is something suspicious but they can't say what so maybe you'd like to withdraw your claim would certainly see this as a barrier.

The insurer should be using these tools to inform their investigation, not to try and scare a customer. I have done cognitive interviewing for a home insurer and have successfully identified fraud - but it is fairly common to invite an insured to withdraw a claim rather than proceed with further investigation - however this should always be done on the basis of outlined discrepancies in the account which you can talk through, rather than a vague 'your voice sounded strange'.

That’s really helpful thank you. As someone with no knowledge of this sort of thing, I have never even made a claim on insurance it’s useful to get some more perspective. 

DullGreyGuy

TSx said:
however this should always be done on the basis of outlined discrepancies in the account which you can talk through, rather than a vague 'your voice sounded strange'.

I'd say welcome to modern technology but insurers have been doing it for well over a decade already.

Whilst you may not like it there are various things that machine learning has proven to be better at than professionals let alone your basic call centre agent. In a world where every penny counts when it comes to insurance premiums bots that can analyse hundreds of claims in seconds will become more prevalent than the special investigators that on an outsourced basis will be costing you near on £100/hr