Editorial: Unfair Attacks on the Insurance Industry and the 60 Minutes Media Hackery

In a media landscape filled with sensationalism, the recent 60 Minutes story attacking the Florida property insurance industry stands out as a prime example of one-sided journalism.

By selectively presenting only the grievances of certain adjusters and homeowners, the program overlooks the complexities and realities of the insurance process.

It's media hackery at its finest, attempting to demonize an industry that plays a vital role in safeguarding people's most valuable assets. But it’s time we pull back the curtain and tell the other side of the story.

One of the common misconceptions propagated by these narratives is that insurance companies are out to “cheat” policyholders by reducing their claim payouts.

This simply isn’t true.

The truth is that the claims process is governed by the policy itself, with specific coverages and exclusions.

Adjusters in the field document damage, but the final say on what is covered rests with the terms of the policy.

However, this nuance is often buried beneath a wave of emotional storytelling that paints insurers as villains.

A recent interview with former Florida Deputy Insurance Commissioner Lisa Miller sheds light on how the system actually works.

Adjusters, such as independent 1099 contractors, go out into the field to assess damage, documenting everything they see.

Their reports are then funneled through third-party administrators (TPAs) before they reach the insurance company for a final decision.

The company reviews the field report to ensure it aligns with the policy’s coverage.

If an item isn’t covered—say, a roof made from more expensive materials than the policy allows, or a pool cage excluded by the policy—the estimate is adjusted accordingly.

Yet, this is exactly where the controversy begins.

When independent adjusters like Jordan Lee complain that their initial $200,000 estimate was cut down to $15,000, it’s usually due to policy constraints.

The insurance company must adhere to the policy terms, even when the adjuster or the homeowner would prefer otherwise.

But these essential facts rarely make it into the conversation.

The 60 Minutes report failed to mention this aspect, instead opting for a dramatic portrayal that feeds into the misguided notion that insurance companies are out to deny legitimate claims.

Another layer to this story is the public's perception of insurance.

Homeowners often buy cheaper policies to keep premiums low, especially during times of financial strain.

They may even choose higher deductibles. When disaster strikes, however, they’re shocked to discover the limitations of their coverage.

While it’s understandable to feel empathy for these policyholders, the reality is that their choices were based on the coverage they selected.

The notion that insurers should provide payouts beyond the scope of the agreed-upon policy is simply unrealistic.

Adding fuel to the fire are law firms, particularly "predatory" ones, that jump at the chance to sue insurers.

Morgan & Morgan, for example, frequently runs commercials promising to get policyholders money from their insurance company.

They paint insurers as villains in a melodramatic battle for justice. In many cases, these law firms are funded by third-party investors, sometimes from overseas, who bankroll lawsuits in exchange for a portion of any settlement.

This third-party litigation funding introduces a profit motive into the equation, incentivizing legal attacks on insurers and adding chaos to the industry.

The problem is further compounded when government-run insurance entities like Citizens Property Insurance are allowed to undercut private market prices.

This has created a dysfunctional marketplace where private insurers struggle to compete with artificially low rates. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist championed this model to win favor with voters, but the consequences are still being felt today.

The resulting price disparity has pushed private insurers to raise their rates, exacerbating the narrative that they are the "bad guys."

So, what’s the endgame of these attacks? The critics don't seem to grasp the bigger picture.

By relentlessly targeting the insurance industry, they risk destabilizing a system that is there to provide protection when disaster strikes.

The comparison to attacking the police or military is apt. Like these institutions, insurance exists to safeguard our homes and livelihoods.

Without it, the consequences would be catastrophic.

The industry isn’t perfect, but to undermine it is to jeopardize the safety net that millions of homeowners rely on.

It's also worth exploring the emotional aspect that often gets lost in translation.

Adjusters are on the front lines, dealing with homeowners who have lost everything.

Naturally, empathy plays a role in how they document damage.

But this human element doesn't override policy limitations.

There’s a reason why the insurance process is structured as it is: to ensure fairness and prevent fraud.

Sadly, fraud does happen, with some homeowners even creating additional damage post-storm to inflate their claims.

The policies are in place to protect not just individual homeowners, but the integrity of the system as a whole.

The 60 Minutes story is just another chapter in a long line of attacks against the insurance industry, fueled by misinformation and misunderstanding.

These narratives overlook the fact that insurance policies are contracts with specific terms, not a carte blanche for unlimited payouts.

The process of adjusting claims is complex, involving field adjusters, TPAs, and insurance companies, all working within the framework of the policy.

Yet, this story fails to acknowledge this complexity, opting instead for an emotionally charged, one-sided portrayal.

The insurance industry is under siege not because it is inherently flawed, but because it is misunderstood and misrepresented.

It’s time to shine a light on the realities of how insurance works, the challenges it faces, and the importance of upholding the integrity of the claims process.

It’s not about denying claims; it’s about adhering to the coverage that policyholders chose.

The real story here is not one of deceit but of due diligence and adherence to contract terms.

The industry is not the enemy; it is the safety net that we should all be working to protect.