The economics of dishonest insurance companies

  • Christian SiemeringEmail author
Original Article


This paper investigates the dynamics of an insurance market on which insurance companies may dishonestly deny eligible claims. Behaving dishonestly can increase the current profit but also entails the risk of losing profit in the future due to a worse reputation. Depending on the reputation cost imposed by policyholders, the analysis either predicts the emergence of reputation cycles or convergence to a stable equilibrium in which all eligible claims are accepted and the insurers’ reputations remain at a high level. I also show that policyholders may discipline insurers using a buying strategy based on an image-scoring rule. My results lead to important insights. For instance, reputation campaigns may have a pro-cyclic effect which leads to more severe reputation crises in the future.


Insurance market Reputation Dishonest insurers 

JEL Classification

G22 L14 C73 



I declare that I have no conflict of interest. I am grateful to Ingela Alger, Heidrun Hoppe-Wewetzer, Georgios Katsenos, Felix Klapper, Hannes Maxin, Andreas Wagener, two anonymous referees, and many seminar participants for helpful comments and suggestions. Financial support by the Internationalization Fond of the Leibniz University of Hannover is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Andersson, Fredrik, and Göran Skogh. 2003. Quality, Self-regulation, and Competition: The Case of Insurance. Insurance Mathematics and Economics 32 (2): 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asmat, Danial P., and Sharon Tennyson. 2014. Dost the Threat of Insurer Liability for Bad Faith Affect Insurance Settlements? Journal of Risk and Insurance 1: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, Ulrich, and Ansgar Grüne. 2016. On the Stability of Cooperation Under Indirect Reciprocity with First-Order Information. Games and Economic Behavior 98: 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgeon, Jean-Marc, and Pierre Picard. 2014. Fraudulent Claims and Nitpicky Insurers. American Economic Review 104 (9): 2900–2917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cressman, Ross. 2003. Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games, vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crocker, Keith J., and John Morgan. 1998. Is Honesty the Best Policy? Curtailing Insurance Fraud Through Optimal Incentive Contracts. Journal of Political Economy 106 (2): 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crocker, Keith John, and Sharon Tennyson. 2002. Insurance Fraud and Optimal Claims Settlement Strategies. Journal of Law and Economics 45 (2): 469–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Csiszar, Ernst, and Gregory W. Heidrich. 2006. The Question of Reputational Risk: Perspectives From An Industry. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice 31 (3): 382–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doherty, Neil A., and Harris Schlesinger. 1990. Rational Insurance Purchasing: Consideration of Contract Non-Performance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (1): 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friedman, Daniel. 1991. Evolutionary Games in Economics. Econometrica Journal of the Econometric Society 59: 637–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fudenberg, Drew, and David M. Kreps. 1987. Reputation in the Simultaneous Play of Multiple Opponents. Review of Economic Studies 54 (4): 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirth, Stefan. 2014. Credit Rating Dynamics and Competition. Journal of Banking & Finance 49 (C): 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofbauer, Josef, and Karl Sigmund. 1998. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houser, Daniel, and John Wooders. 2006. Reputation in Auctions: Theory, and Evidence from eBay. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 15 (2): 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopel, Michael, Fabio Lamantia, and Ferenc Szidarovszky. 2014. Evolutionary Competition in a Mixed Market with Socially Concerned Firms. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 48: 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krawczyk, Michal. 2009. The Role of Repetition and Observability in Deterring Insurance Fraud. The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review 34 (1): 74–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kreps, David M., and Robert Wilson. 1982. Reputation and Imperfect Information. Journal of Economic Theory 27 (2): 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathis, Jérôme, James McAndrews, and Jean-Charles Rochet. 2009. Rating the Raters: Are Reputation Concerns Powerful Enough to Discipline Rating Agencies? Journal of Monetary Economics 56 (5): 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, Donald J., and Jack Meyer. 2010. Excluded Losses and the Demand for Insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 41 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts. 1982. Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory 27 (2): 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nowak, Martin A., and Karl Sigmund. 1998. The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 194 (4): 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nowak, Martin A., and Karl Sigmund. 1998. Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring. Nature 393 (6685): 573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Otto, Sarah P., and Troy Day. 2007. A Biologist’s Guide to Mathematical Modeling in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Picard, Pierre. 1996. Auditing Claims in the Insurance Market with Fraud: The Credibility Issue. Journal of Public Economics 63 (1): 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, Peter D. 1979. Evolutionarily Stable Strategies with Two Types of Player. Journal of Applied Probability 16 (1): 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor, Peter D., and Leo B. Jonker. 1978. Evolutionary Stable Strategies and Game Dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences 40 (1–2): 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tennyson, Sharon, and William J. Warfel. 2009. The Emergence and Potential Consequences of First-Party Insurance Bad-Faith Liability. Journal of Insurance Regulation 28: 3–20.Google Scholar
  28. Tennyson, Sharon, and William J. Warfel. 2009. Law and Economics of First-Party Insurance Bad Faith Liability. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal 16: 203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsLeibniz University of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations