Americans’ anger at insurers is bigger than health care: three regulatory reforms that could rebuild trust
A national conversation fueled by grief, outrage and a deeper loss of confidence
Late in 2024, a shocking killing outside an investors conference pushed the insurance industry into an intense and uncomfortable spotlight. Authorities said the attack was targeted and that bullet casings at the scene carried the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” an unsettling echo of the title of a book about insurance claim practices: Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.
The incident triggered a torrent of online reaction that did not follow the pattern many would expect after a death. Instead of focusing on mourning, much of the public response turned into blame aimed at major insurers. Some people pointed to experiences of denied or delayed care and argued that companies had failed to pay for essential medical treatments. In the most disturbing corners of the internet, trolls even celebrated the alleged shooter as a kind of vigilante.
From the perspective of an insurance scholar, this grim reaction was not entirely surprising. It revealed something that has been building for years: resentment and, in many cases, rage toward insurance companies. While health insurance was at the center of the immediate discussion, the underlying frustration extends well beyond medical coverage. Homeowners insurance is becoming harder to obtain in many states even as coverage shrinks, and auto insurance rates are rising sharply. Together, these pressures are fueling wider discontent with insurers of all types.
Why claim denials and delays hit a nerve
Across insurance lines, the most intense outrage tends to emerge at the moment consumers feel a promise has been broken. Policyholders are typically most angered when insurers fail to pay claims promptly and fairly. The reaction is not only about money; it is about the expectation that insurance is a contract designed to provide security when something goes wrong.
In personal accounts from consumers, a familiar pattern appears again and again. People describe insurers delaying payment on some claims, denying other claims that policyholders believe are valid, and forcing consumers to fight—sometimes in court—to obtain benefits they thought they had purchased. The allegation behind these stories is that companies can increase profits by cutting claim costs, and that the “delay, deny, defend” approach is not an accident but a business practice.
Yet the roots of many disputes begin earlier than the claim itself. The problems often start at the point of purchase, when consumers are trying to understand what they are buying and what protection they will actually have when they need it.
The information gap: buying a promise you can’t easily read
Insurance is a product built on language—definitions, exclusions, conditions and procedures. But consumers often enter the market with limited access to that language and even less ability to interpret it. For homeowners, auto and many other types of insurance, companies seldom provide copies of policy language or accessible summaries of policy terms to prospective policyholders.
Even when consumers can obtain the policy, many do not read it or cannot understand it. Policies are long, complex legal documents. And even diligent readers face another obstacle: it is difficult to anticipate all the ways a loss could occur, and all the problems that might arise after a loss. This means consumers may focus on a few headline terms—coverage limits, deductibles, perhaps a few add-ons—while assuming the rest will work out when the time comes.
Advertising fills the gap with reassurance. People buy coverage believing they will be “in good hands” or supported by a “good neighbor,” to borrow two iconic phrases from insurance marketing. That brand-based confidence can be powerful. But it can also mask the reality that the policy is the product, and the policy’s fine print is what ultimately determines whether a claim is paid.
Protection gaps: the surprise that arrives when disaster does
When consumers finally need coverage, many discover that their insurance contains significant gaps. In health insurance, limitations can arise through provider networks, medical necessity rules and preauthorization requirements. These features can determine what care is covered, when it is covered and under what conditions, creating a tangle of restrictions that may not be obvious to a consumer at enrollment.
Homeowners insurance presents a different but equally painful surprise. Many homeowners reasonably expect that they will be fully covered for major losses. But insurers have been cutting back coverage to account for rising costs linked to inflation and climate change. When the loss occurs—a storm, a fire, another catastrophe—policyholders can find that the protection they thought they had is narrower than expected.
The result is a sense of betrayal: people feel they have paid for security and did not receive it. In that moment, insurance stops being an abstract financial product and becomes a test of trust. The recent public reaction suggests that, for many Americans, that trust is badly frayed.
Why the industry is unlikely to fix this on its own
Rebuilding trust in insurance is essential, but it will not be easy. Insurance can be a cornerstone of financial security for the American middle class—when it works as promised. The problem, as the insurance scholar argues, is that the industry faces strong incentives not to change without outside pressure. Financial strains from increasing losses and fierce market competition are significant. In that environment, companies may be tempted to reduce claim costs, narrow coverage, or rely on complex processes that make it harder for consumers to obtain benefits.
That is why the proposed path forward is not more outrage but more regulation. If insurance is to serve its goals, lawmakers and regulators will need to take action. Based on research into insurance claim practices and consumer experience, three broad reforms stand out as practical steps that could improve outcomes across multiple lines of insurance.
Reform 1: Make the insurance market work better through accessible information
Markets depend on information. When consumers can compare products clearly, they can make choices that reward better offerings and penalize worse ones. In insurance, however, the information consumers need is often unavailable or unusable.
The first reform is straightforward in concept: require that key information about coverage be available in an accessible format for all types of insurance. The goal is not to eliminate complexity—insurance will always involve details—but to ensure consumers can see the most important terms in a way that is understandable before they commit.
That would mean, at minimum, that consumers could review core coverage terms and limitations without having to decode dense legal documents. It would also mean that the market becomes less dependent on brand slogans and more dependent on clear, comparable facts.
But coverage summaries alone are not enough. Consumers also need information about the quality of companies offering policies. One of the most meaningful measures of quality is whether an insurer pays claims promptly and fairly. Right now, consumers do not have much reliable information on that point. The reform proposal is to mandate disclosure so that policyholders can evaluate not only the price and stated coverage, but also the company’s track record in handling claims.
In practical terms, this approach aims to reduce the disconnect between what consumers think they are buying and what they actually receive after a loss. Better information would not solve every dispute, but it could reduce the number of people blindsided by exclusions, limitations and procedures they never saw coming.
Reform 2: Consider minimum coverage standards, especially for homeowners insurance
The second reform addresses a trend that has become increasingly visible: insurers cutting back coverage to reduce costs. When companies narrow protection across the market, consumers may have fewer meaningful choices, even if they shop around. The question becomes whether some forms of insurance are too important to be left entirely to the shifting dynamics of the marketplace.
States, the argument goes, would be wise to consider minimum coverage standards—particularly for homeowners insurance. There is historical precedent for this kind of intervention. In 1943, New York adopted a Standard Fire Policy through legislation, an approach that was later copied in many states. The aim was to set a baseline for what fire coverage would include, preventing a race to the bottom in which consumers paid for policies that looked like protection but delivered too little when it mattered.
Decades later, the Affordable Care Act took a similar approach in health insurance by requiring coverage of 10 “Essential Health Benefits.” While health insurance and homeowners insurance are different products, the underlying regulatory idea is comparable: lawmakers establish minimum standards that every company must meet, ensuring that consumers receive a basic level of meaningful protection.
In the current environment—where homeowners coverage is shrinking in response to rising costs tied to inflation and climate change—the proposal is for states to revisit whether minimum standards are needed again. This does not necessarily mean identical policies for everyone. It means setting a floor beneath which coverage cannot fall, so that “insurance” remains a functional promise rather than a patchwork of exclusions.
Reform 3: Strengthen remedies when insurers act unreasonably
The third reform focuses on what happens after a claim is filed. Not every claim dispute is evidence of bad behavior. Many disagreements are good-faith disputes about facts or valuation. A common example is roof damage: was it caused by hail, which is usually covered, or by wear and tear, which typically is not? These questions can be genuinely contested, and insurers and policyholders may reasonably disagree.
But the reform proposal is aimed at the other category of cases: situations in which insurers deny claims after inadequate investigations or for reasons that policyholders view as spurious. When that happens, the burden often falls on the consumer to spend substantial time and effort fighting for benefits they believe they were owed from the start.
One example cited comes from a 2023 investigation that concluded that, after Hurricane Ian, some Florida insurance companies aggressively sought to limit payouts by altering the work of adjusters who inspected damaged homes. According to that reporting, some policyholders and their families saw their Hurricane Ian claims reduced by 45% to 97%. A nonprofit insurance watchdog group said it found “compelling evidence” that appeared to show multiple instances of systematic criminal fraud designed to cheat policyholders out of fair insurance claims.
In cases like these, even when an insurer eventually relents, the company may still have failed its original promise to settle claims promptly and fairly. The proposed regulatory response is to ensure policyholders have effective remedies when insurers are found to have acted unreasonably. That could include requiring additional compensation to policyholders and creating disincentives for unreasonable conduct, with the aim of leveling the playing field between large companies and individual consumers.
From rage to regulation: what these reforms are trying to accomplish
The public anger that surfaced so starkly after the killing of a health insurance executive did not arise in a vacuum. It reflects a broader sense that insurance—health, homeowners, auto and beyond—too often fails at the moment it is supposed to provide stability. When people pay premiums for years and then encounter delays, denials, shrinking coverage or a legal fight, they can feel less like customers and more like adversaries.
The three reforms proposed by the insurance law scholar share a common goal: to make insurance function more like the dependable financial safety net it is marketed to be.
Better information aims to reduce confusion and allow consumers to compare coverage and company performance in a meaningful way.
Minimum coverage standards aim to prevent critical insurance products—especially homeowners coverage—from being hollowed out by shrinking protections.
Stronger remedies aim to deter unreasonable claim handling and ensure consumers are not forced to bear the cost of fighting for what they already paid for.
None of these steps would eliminate every dispute. Insurance will always involve uncertainty, and claims will always involve investigation and judgment. But the reforms are designed to address the specific points where consumers most often feel the system has failed: not understanding what they bought, discovering gaps only after a loss, and lacking practical leverage when they believe a company has acted unfairly.
The larger stakes for the middle class
At its best, insurance is a stabilizing force. It can protect families from financial ruin after a medical crisis, a home disaster or an accident. That is why the stakes are so high when the system appears to be breaking down. If consumers come to believe that insurers will not pay promptly and fairly, the product loses its social value and becomes a source of fear and resentment rather than security.
The recent wave of outrage—however troubling its expression—signals a need for a more constructive response. The argument presented by the scholar is that meaningful reform will not come from the industry alone, given the financial pressures insurers face. It will require lawmakers and regulators to set clearer rules, demand transparency and ensure accountability.
In that sense, the choice facing policymakers is not whether to respond to public anger, but how. The proposed reforms offer one route: shifting the conversation away from rage and toward regulation that makes insurance markets more understandable, coverage more reliable and claim handling more fair.