|
|
|
|
|
|
by drtillberg
2501 days ago
|
|
|
In this case the accused person sued the insurer who reported them to police and apparently won a settlement (that curiously did not forbid him from disparaging the insurer post-litigation). The hypothetical you gave would be more on point if instead of deliberately withholding key information, the 911-caller made a truthful allegation for an ulterior motive. So more like, 'there are suspicious cars idling outside the firing range and people walking around with guns. Someone swung the muzzle in my direction for a moment and made me feel unsafe.' As for the insurer paying the salary of the officer who investigates-- yeah, poor optics there but the extension of the hypothetical scenario would be that the police deprioritized gun crimes without funding and won't show up and investigate otherwise. So the real newsworthy issue here, which the article missed, is why police departments in Pennsylvania don't investigate insurance fraud felonies unless someone in the private sector is willing to cover their expenses. |
|
|
There are many examples in the article of insurance using misleading or faulty evidence, and people ending up in prison or homeless as the result.
> So the real newsworthy issue here, which the article missed, is why police departments in Pennsylvania don't investigate insurance fraud felonies unless someone in the private sector is willing to cover their expenses.
It is mind-boggling why you would think the investigators would be impartial when paid by the insurance companies. The examples from the article certainly point to the direct opposite of that.