[mirimir]

> Erie Insurance, one of the nation’s largest auto insurers, had not only provided the cops with evidence against its own loyal customer — it had actively worked with them to try to convict him of insurance fraud.

OK, but there is no "loyal customer". There is only the prospect of a payout. And the incentive to avoid it.

[Ensorceled]

Ah, loyal customer is a commonly used term for a customer who has conducted business with a company for a long time. Not sure why you put it in quotes or why it confused you, but you can google it.

[mirimir]

Yeah, OK. It's just that the outrage of TFA relies on the assumption that customers' loyalty implies companies' loyalty to them. It's arguably a foolish assumption. Especially about insurance companies, whose profitability relies on denying claims.

[Ensorceled]

Not the assumption, the expectation. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, hence the outrage. "Caveat Emptor" shouldn't be a general business model.

[skj]

Honestly I don't get the slant from the article. "Loyal customers" of an insurance company and "insurance fraud" don't mix.

Maybe I should read the article instead of just comments here...

[mirimir]

It's quite simple. I gather that he'd been a customer for many years. So "loyal customer". And I gather that he owned an expensively customized vehicle.

So something bad happened, and he filed a claim. And the insurance company's systems presumably flagged the claim. Probably because it was much larger than expected, based on the type and age of vehicle. So they paid police to investigate for fraud. And I gather that they eventually did file a crime report. And at trial, their expert presumably testified that the vehicle wasn't worth as much as claimed.

[marcus_holmes]

loyal customers pay premiums for years. Often at rates higher than new customers get (the "loyalty tax").

[mirimir]

Indeed. Perhaps counter-intuitively, for many customers.

More irony about the concept of a "loyal customer".