[rconti]

So, I've seen the flip side of this. I have a friend who does building inspections for insurance companies. He sees what's basically outright fraud all the time, but companies rarely press it. Think about it: their main incentive is to avoid paying out claims where they shouldn't have to. They're more than happy to deny a claim, stop offering your services to that person and let the next insurance company get defrauded by the person. The companies have minimal incentive to rat out their own clients (especially when they're merely 95% sure it's fraud), and so lawlessness can easily continue.

So, I can see both sides of this. The government might WANT to prosecute insurance fraud, but they're rarely aware of it, because how would they find out?

[Mathnerd314]

I assume he's seeing construction fraud? Then the builder would be liable rather than the policyholder, and IANAL but probably the insurance company wouldn't have standing to do anything even if they wanted to since they don't own the building.

Or is he correcting details of the properties used in some actuarial model? I suppose that would be more interesting but I can't imagine that a 4x premium adjustment or whatever would be worth suing for.

[rconti]

Policyholder/homeowner fraud.