[onetimemanytime]

The biggest and (maybe) the only problem are the incentives for LEO to manipulate proof to jail /convict innocent people. Even an arrest can ruin your life, let alone trial, regardless of outcome.

Other than that, insurance companies have a right to cut down on fraud and jail fraudsters.

[onion2k]

There are a couple more things wrong here.

LEOs have access to tools that the public and corporations don't have access to, and the law prevents them having access to. By paying a LEO to access those tools the insurers are circumventing the will of the people.

Also, by paying LEOs to investigate a particular crime that means the insurer is effectively getting to pick who is investigated and who isn't. They should be able to deny a claim, and report what they believe is fraud, but the insurer shouldn't be telling law enforcement who to look in to. That's law enforcements decision alone, and payments muddy the water.

Paying for law enforcement is a bad idea. It changes the incentives too much.

[devoply]

They paid salaries of police, the judiciary, and the guy who testified against him in a CRIMINAL trial. That's more than enough conflict of interest to have any such criminal trial thrown out.

[onetimemanytime]

I understand the issue, but you either committed insurance fraud or you didn't.

Here's the evidence, counter it and let the jury decide.

[pas]

Direct incentives for law enforcement rarely lead to unadulterated truth and prevention.

[deeg]

Not just the right but the fiduciary duty. Fraud raises premiums for all other clients.