Insurance Claims to be Tested by Lie Detector 307
Albanach writes "HBOS, one of the largest UK banks is to introduce random lie detector analysis of insurance claims according to this article from the Edinburgh Evening News. The three month trial will see calls from its 1.5 million policy holders randomly subjected to voice stress analysis. Those flagged up will then receive a set of questions designed to expose 'potential fraudsters'."
Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, one would have to consent in writing which they may offer a reduced premium to encourage people to sign up. (In reality, the money they save will possibly not be passed on: instead the 'reduced premium' could end up as being the usual price and those not signing up will pay a penalty).
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be a condition of your policy, absent any consumer protection legislation to the contrary, which given the current U.S. administration is not bloody likely.
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2)
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:5, Informative)
Or did you just mean - First Post?
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Surely under these circumstances, the voice-stress meters will be pegging all kinds of false positives and so on? I know I'd be all over the place, so any stress analysis is likely to be inherently flawed in such a situation...
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:3, Insightful)
I would bet dollars to donuts the stress would be different.
Or would it, I dunno, I supose I don't know much about what "Voice stress" really measures... but I can't imagine that a frauder and a real claim are going to be stressed in the same way.
-Steve
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2)
That's why the article refers to the subject having to be given a Data Protection Act warning at the start of the call - continuing with the call will deem to be consent. I'd be interested to see the warning - the unusual nature of the procedure means it would have to be rather detailed.
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps the word you are looking for is this [reference.com].
Although, I admit that bird contrails would be an interesting sight. =)
Re:Yea right, I'm sure (Score:2)
Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention stress induced by the 'Press 1 to speak to a human being who sounds like a machine, Press 2 to speak to a machine who sounds like a human being ... [BLIP]
You pressed 1. Press 1 to speak to a person in Edinburgh, Press 2 to speak to a person in Bangalore, Press 3 ... [BLIP]
You pressed 2. If you want to learn more about our low, low rates Press 1, If you want a cuddly toy as seen in our adverts Press 2, If you actually want to talk to someone Press 3 ... [BLIP]
You pressed 3. Are you sure you want to speak to someone? Press 1 ... [BLIP]
whirr clickity
Hello and welcome to the queue to join the queue to talk to one of our service representatives, you are number [pause] fifty-seven in the queue, estimated wait time is [long pause] - do you have any plans for October? While you are waiting, do you know about our other services?' rigamarole.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Silly (Score:2)
Decaf.... (Score:2)
Re:Silly (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)
Actually that' "baseline" is all bullshit.
The first questions to "calibrate" a polygraph are simply to mindfuck the person being tested. The user is told to tell the truth on a meaningless question, then told to lie on another meaningless question. The polygraph operator looks quizzically at the data then says something like "You're a terrible liar! It's off the charts!".
Lie detecting is fraud,whether by voice stress analysis or any other means. Read deeply at www.antipolygraph.org
It's about gaining confessions from gullible people. There is no real science involved. No lies are actually "detected".
Re:Silly (Score:5, Informative)
I'm lucky enough to have been polygraphed, but not for having done something important. I was actually a guinea pig for police officers being trained to become polygraph operators. I am not sure if polygraphs are completely worthless or not, but I can guarantee that the way they're used is not as a "lie detection device" but more as an interrogation technique.
When they polygraphed me, they used some cheap magicians tricks. They had me choose a random card, then told me to say no for each card when they asked "is this your card?". Using the polygraph they claimed to know what card I had chosen -- but the way they set things up it seemed more like magicians tricks, than it did polygraph operation. They also showed me a wavy line with a spike afterward, claiming that the spike was when they detected me lying... but when I tried to get some more details they avoided the subject.
When it came for the real test, it ran mostly like what you see in the movies. After the test was done they thanked me for cooperating and then started trying to usher me out. I asked if I could see the results and they refused. Later on, I was told that a polygraph operator never shows their results to anybody, not even their partners.
I'm not sure if the machines are completely worthless, or if they can do something, but it certainly isn't a lie detector, it's more a "reaction sensor" if anything. I wouldn't be surprised if the cops get more out of watching someone's face, eyes, and posture than they do out of the device. It's just that the device has such fame from TV and movies that guilty people think it will catch them, making them more nervous (and presumably innocent people feel it will vindicate them, making them more relaxed).
The only think I learned from the experience is that police interrogators are good at getting confessions. That doesn't necessarily mean they're good at getting only guilty people to confess, however. If you ever get accused of something and a cop wants to question you, whether you're completely guilty or completely innocent, insist on a lawyer.
Re:Silly (Score:4, Informative)
1. Do you know why I stopped you?
2. We'll go easy on you if you just tell us what happened...
3. You don't ming if I look in your trunk, do you?
As far as the syllabus that you linked to, it looks like the classic "Did daddy touch you this way?" and then operator demonstrates with anatomically correct dolls. Kid goes "uh hunh."
The trick for adults is to shut the fuck up when a cop talks to them. Don't follow social rules about "filling silences" or "being nice". The cops are worse than telemarketers -- not only do they refuse to take "no" for an answer, they are frequently looking to arrest you for something. It's a lot worse than buying a subscription to a shitty magazine.
If questioned by a cop for anything you did not call them for (i.e. they are knocking and looking for you), here's the thing to do:
1. Say "I want to talk to my lawyer."
2. Shut your mouth.
3. Do not give them permission to do anything.
GF.
Great. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think insurance companies have some lawyers paid to think about such issues before spending money on them ?
Re:Great. (Score:2)
To us this may seem like a bad idea, but fraudulent claims are a HUGE problem in the insurance industry, and they are trying to fight these people any way they can. One thi
Stress? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stress? (Score:2)
I doubt they will be doing this for people who just got in accidents; this is for further investigation. Much like I got whiplash from the accident, and I can't work; or I hurt my back on the job and can't work (but I can still play baseball!)
I'm all for it, if they can prove it cuts down insurance fraud (the reason insur
And even worse (Score:2)
It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not just bad, this is awful. If you were falsely accused, you could land in jail and be out thousands of dollars in fines. Even if you miraculously avoided all that, you would still be left with a valid insurance claim that wouldn't be paid, despite the fact that you paid your premiums and did nothing wrong, other than fail a pseudoscientific test.
As for the supposed deterrent effect, that's a ridiculous analogy. You might as well suggest that we fine and jail people who "look suspicious" at random; you would get the same results. While you'd certainly catch criminals, you'd also punish a number of completely innocent people. Deterrent effect? No, there's a difference between deterrents and people living in fear of the law. The fact that polygraph tests are generally inadmissable in American and European courts should tell you something about what effects this would have.
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a fairly new, expensive car with good comprehensive insurance. You leave the alarm system disabled by accident one day, and your car is stolen. You submit a claim to the insurance company and file a police report. A few days later, you are called into their office, to give a statement into a tape recorder. You fail the "voice stress analysis." Due to this, the insurance company starts to dig. They find that you left your alarm off, and think they can take you to court. You are taken to court and convicted of fraud, and punished accordingly. You are punished, but did nothing wrong.
What's the point I'm trying to make? It's simple: these essentially random tests will be used to determine who is suspected of a crime and thus investigated further, with a heavy bias towards criminal activity - investigators will tend to look for any evidence at all that might support the "criminal activity" theory, and doubt evidence that disproves that theory. It's a basic tenet of psychology that people tend to choose one theory and build up supporting evidence for it, while disregarding evidence that might disprove it.
Of the many cases detected by this "lie detector," there are almost certainly cases that have done nothing wrong, but have a large amount of circumstantial evidence against the person making the claim. While circumstantial evidence is technically inadmissable in court, expensive legal attack teams, like the ones held on retainer or employed by large companies like insurers and banks, can get away with almost anything and make it look reasonable. I doubt you could afford your own counterattack lawyers.
The end result is that it's possible for innocents to be punished. While I agree that insurance fraud is without a doubt a Bad Thing, and deterrents to insurance fraud are good, the chance of error here is simply too high.
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
It would deter real people (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course, real scammers will easily get by this. And since like most "security" measures, it make them watchers complacent: "Nobody is getting past our lie detectors."
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
I don't see any downside to this -- they're not using a positive result on the test to deny claims, they're using a positive result on the test as a clue to dig deeper into the veracity of the claim. If it's a legit claim, that should come out no matter whether you pass or fail the lie detector test.
Re:It's a Manipulation Tactic (Score:2)
Another link, albeit from the popular press so a bit short on technical details: The truth about polygraphs [boston.com].
These tests are completely unreliable, and suffer both from false negatives and false positives in abundance. If you're ever asked to take one for any reason you should refuse. If the results favour you they'll be ignored, if they don't you'll never live them down, however wrong they may be. These things are evil.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
Give the reporter a polygraph.
Hopefully... (Score:2, Insightful)
But what about... (Score:2, Interesting)
I know lie detectors are supposed to be calibrated, but they aren't fool-proof and to hang decisions like this on them is just foolhardy.
Last time I had to make an insurance claim, it was against someone who thru their own negligent driving resulted in me having a serious enough motorbike accident to fuck my ankle, my bike & nearly write off their new, expensive enough, car. And I wasn't going fast, and did what I could
From what I have heard... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is bullshit (Score:2)
The idea is not that lie detectors tell the truth. The idea is that you tell the truth if you are connected to a lie detector. It doesn't matter what that thing does at that time, it doesn't even need to be connected to any power source.
Et tu, UK? (Score:2)
Train to beat it. (Score:5, Informative)
Antipolygraph.org [antipolygraph.org]
dont need to. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:dont need to. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Train to beat it. (Score:2)
I love this quote from the above website:
"Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG)"
retired
CIA polygrapher
John F. Sullivan
Must be a Slashdot card carrying member.
Disclosure (Score:2)
Rus
They're in Trouble (Score:5, Funny)
A special series of questions has also been devised to try and catch out fraudsters.
And when was the accident?
Who was driving?
What's the capitol of Uzbekistan?
Pi to 15 digits?
I'm sorry sir, your claim has been denied.
This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time they come up with BS like this they always claim it will lower premiums and give some inflated figure of how much fraudulent claims are costing them, but who is to say how many of those fraudulent claims are not just the companies finding a loophole to screw anybody who makes a claim.
Can't stand them, they have a business model where everybody has to give them money and they resent anybody with a legitimate claim to it.
Re:This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to accomplish this would be to require a third party review claims, and if they find the claims to be valid, require the insurer to pay them. The third party claims reviewers would be held accountabl
What a brilliant business maneuver (Score:2, Funny)
The three month trial will also see their customer base dwindle to miniscule numbers.
On the other hand (Score:2)
Note that in order to "work" the technology doesn't actually need to catch people out who make fraudulent claims. It simply needs to get enough publicity to discourage people from making fraudulent claims.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, police don't generally use the polygraph to make a direct case against someone. They use it in conjunction with hard evidence and a narrowed list of suspects for a particular, established crime. As long as an insurance company is smart enough to not use the test to try to claim "you're lying! You weren't hit by the other driver" based on a nervous test taker who trips the system simply by knowing that (s)he is taking it, and they go on other evidence as well, like police reports and the like, things should be okay.
For other things, like theft, if someone is confident enough that they'll succeed by reporting something stolen, then trying to claim it on insurance, it's pretty likely that they'll now take steps to practice to lie to a polygraph convincingly. That would render things completely useless.
Either way, we'll have to see what the results of use are, and hope that they don't claim fraud upon people who are exhonerated later.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
of course they are unreliable, and different readers can come up with different results using the same data.
THIS system is bogus (Score:2)
They would if they could - polygraphs aren't admissible in many states here in the US. And there's a reason - it's not all that accurate, and that's when used by someone trained. Also, this system isn't even being administered by any trained person, as it isn't even being administered by an actual person
Lie detectors suck (Score:2)
For the way technology has improved life press 1 (Score:5, Funny)
Good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Insurance Agent: I'm sorry sir. This policy only covers real damage. Not made up damage.
Homer: D'oh!
There are a lot of people who try to scam the insurance companies and I end up paying for it through higher premiums. These are private companies and if you don't want to deal with one that uses lie detection don't. But I'll be the first in line to sign up with a company that does.
Re:Good. (Score:2)
Is this also unusable in the UK? (Score:2)
turnabout (Score:2, Insightful)
Simpson's quote (Score:5, Funny)
Moe: No
Lie Detector: BZZZT!
Moe: All right, I did. But I didn't shoot him.
Lie Detector: Ding!
Detective: Checks out. All right, sir. You're free to go.
Moe: Good, because I have a hot date tonight.
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: A date
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: Dinner with friends.
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: Dinner Alone.
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: Watching TV
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: All right! I'm going to sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalog.
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Moe: Sears Catalogue.
Lie Detector: Ding!
Moe: Now will you unhook me already? I don't deserve this shabby treatment!
Lie Detector: BZZZZZT!!!!
Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)
Homer : Yes.
[ The machine blows up ].
From the Skeptic's Dictionary: (Score:4, Informative)
From a page about the Truster Voice Stress Analyzer [skepdic.com]:
What is a voice stress analyzer, you might wonder? It is a machine that measures components of the human voice--frequency modulations--that are correlated with stress. No machine can detect stress directly, much less distinguish whether the stress is due to lying, guilt, stutter, fear, constipation, or some other emotion or physical condition. The frequency modulations, called "micro tremors" by those who measure them, must be interpreted by a human being. The machine doesn't do the analysis, the examiner does.
Re:From the Skeptic's Dictionary: (Score:2)
why is this a problem? (Score:2)
this is only automating this method. really, a lie detector is not much better or worse than someone guessing whether you're lying or not.
it is not as if they are automatically pronouncing your claim as fraudulent because of the results of the lie-detect
Re:why is this a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) It becomes a 'prove your innocent' case if someone thinks you are lying.
3)people come to trust machines. So they will take a failable machine over a person.
4)the agent has to look at evicence and facts to determin wether you are lying.
5)IT put the burden of proof onto the victim.
Some basic facts (Score:5, Informative)
1) They are out to make money
2) They make said money based purely on others suffering
3) They will try to weasel (no offence to weasels) out of *any* contract
4) Any money saved will *not* reduce premiums but increase bonuses and dividends
5) Insurance companies have never worried about legality. If they reject 50 claims (illegally) and only 5 have the time, energy and money to fight them they have made money on the other 45. All costs that the 5 have to pay, they cannot get back
6) Lie detectors are inammisable in UK courts - but that won't stop Insurance companies.
In the UK insurance companies work a "your a lieing defrauding piece of crap" policy. It's not even "guilty until proven innocent" policy. Most of the time Insurance companies believe _all_ people are trying to illegally claim.
Re:Some basic facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
Why don't you look around Mr Troll? (Score:2)
Just how is Britain a fascist country? What makes it one? Because a private company decides to examine insurance claims in this manner? Because a RFID trial is occuring (and drawing local and national protest) at one supermarket on one pruduct? Because their are CCTVs monitoring things as mundane as passenger flow/safety on the London Underground, traffic jams on major roads and around major terrorist targets?
Wow, it
From nopolygraph.com (Score:2, Interesting)
181.75 Polygraph tests of employees or prospective employees
prohibited.
Subdivision 1. Prohibition, penalty. No employer or agent thereof
shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice
stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any
employee or prospective employee. No person shall sell to or
interpret for an employer or the employer's agent a test that the
person knows has been solicited or required by an employer or
agent to test the honesty of a
Lie detectors don't always work (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been submitted to a lie detector one time. Basically my house was broken into, and to clear my name, the police wanted to give me a lie detector test (i don't know off hand what kind it was) but i basically failed the test. The problem is that I failed the preliminary test too. I failed questions that were specifically designed to be correct.
Do you live in the state of michigan?
Do you live in the United States?
Are you 17 years old?
If you can't pass questions that are geared to be absolutely correct, than why do they still consider you failing the actual test as you lieing? I'm afraid something like this would happen in this situation.
Just giving my $0.02 worth.
Everyone Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
----- Sinclair, "Babylon 5", 'And the Sky Full of Stars' [midwinter.com]
Innocent until tested guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the system isn't capable of false positives. "You can't be innocent, the machine says you're guilty. And since only guilty people are caught by the machine, you can't be innocent. QED."
Also note that the article is talking about voice-analysis stress testing (over the phone, surely that couldn't ever be inaccurate), not polygraphs. Polygraphs are a crock as well, of course, but this isn't them.
Post-facto (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny they don't require this before they take your money. Maybe they should be subject to my lie detector when I subscribe with them: are they really going to be there 24 hours a day with a hold time of under 10 minutes? Will they settle all of my claims, or just the claims that they feel are reasonable? If a natural disaster occurs, and several $Billions are filed simultaneously, will I still be covered, or will they simply go bankrupt? Will they really save me 15% or more?
Really, brillant strategy. Take money, and then decline service later. Maybe computer techs should be in the same business: I'll take your money now, but when you need service I'll just blame it on you and continue to post to
Too bad it's voodoo science (Score:5, Interesting)
These things have no place. They are not useful for job screening. They are not useful for investigative purposes. They are not reliable enough for any application. Congress was right to refuse to be polygraphed while under investigation- I would certainly refuse any future polygraph. They shouldn't be hypocrital, though. They should strike down polygraph use entirely.
Trusting polygraphs is a threat to our national security. Not only because double agents and such can easily pass them while lying (any well trained person can), but because so many qualified applicants are replaced with less qualified applicants who can satisfy the voodoo magic of a polygraph machine. Personally, I would like the very best working for the CIA, NSA, etc.
From the article: (Score:5, Funny)
BZZZZZZZT! LIE DETECTED.
Ah good, I'm certain the insurance company (Score:2)
You know, insurrance companies qualify for something lower than lawyers in my books. Witness the apparent world-wide increase in premiums due to 911. Of course that had nothing to do with the come-uppance they rig
I'm fine with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also want to get a truthful answer to the question "Will I be dropped after my first claim?"
Nothing to Fear? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, right. Honest policyholders do have something to fear; the fear that when this flim-flam pseudoscience piece of crap system randomly flags them as a liar!
Actually, the insurance company will probably use this like the police do. The insurance company will use the voice analysis technology against people who they already think are trying to defraud the c
Im a semi-pro insurance fraudster ... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that this will catch low level fraud such as exagerated and false claims on things like household work and travel insurance. How well will depend on how good the equipment is and how frequently it is used. Also, publicising its use will have a great detterent effect which is why they are doing so.
However higher up the food chain this is just not going to replace effective investigation. In my scams I always ensure that I have employed some patsy
Re:Im a semi-pro insurance fraudster ... (Score:2)
I rather think thats the point. Like warez the intent is not to stop it happening but to reduce its prevalance. A lot of travel insurance fraud is opportunist - people genuinely lose something and then d
yay! another excuse to screw honest people. (Score:2)
I think this is excellent, but... (Score:2)
Insurer: "So, your neighbour's car exploded and your house caught fire, you lost all your posessions, and you've now lost your job too?"
Victim: "Yeah, I guess so, it all happened so fast, I'm still kinda stunned..."
Insurer: "Do you have proper documentation for all your posessions?"
Victim: "Well, my hou
Your objections amaze me (Score:2, Insightful)
From a crowd (/.) that not only advocates free speech but also the freedom to listen to anything that is being transmitted, yet you opose to a 3rd party listening in on your own transmissions?
Of course someone whose house has just burned down or car totaled will be stressed, but the evidence in these cases is so clear, that a police report can be trusted, something which can't be said about foreign police report
Ah, good idea (Score:2)
Why stop at insurance fraud? (Score:2)
wtf? (Score:2)
Sounds like a scam to scare people rather than a real policy to reduce fraud.
The point they seem to be missing... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is that most people generally have very good reasons for sounding distressed during a call an insurance company.
How is someone supposed to calmly explain they just lost their entire family to a car crash, saw their child die in a terrorist attack, or just permanently lost the use of their arm to the wood chipper? How are they supposed to do this while navigating the vast innefficient bureaucracy insurers have erected to keep callers to a minimum? Just getting through the bloody voice mail tree is often more than enough to send most folks into a rage, which'll probably light these lie detectors up like Times Square on New Year's Eve.
I get the feeling this is just another attempt for insurance companies to try and justify claim denials. Cheap and cruelly insensitive.
What's next (Score:4, Funny)
Ask the NSA about it (Score:3, Informative)
"Lie-detectors" are voodoo. Any informed court should tear a case based on those results to shreds. (Two weasel-words in there: informed and should.) I wonder how the insurance companies will hire trained and certified operators? Check for recent certs from the Cthurch of $cientology with E-meters?
My advice?
(a) refuse any such idiocy.
(b) if pressed, curl your toes on any tough question.
Re:Insurance is a SHAM! (Score:3, Informative)
This year my company had it's highest amount of money made in a long time off of premiums. After cat damages (mass catastrophies are tracked differently due to reinsurance.... it's a long idea, and I'm not sure I could explain it well)... anyway, after all damages and claims paid out, our company made 96% return on premium.
That is to say, for each dollar collected in Premiums for p
Re:Insurance is a SHAM! (Score:2)
Re:Insurance is a SHAM! (Score:2)
We posted 97.5% in 2002, which is probably somewhat easier to do when you only have $76.1m in P&C WP.
Re:Complete Text of Article (Score:5, Insightful)
"Honest policyholders will have nothing to fear and combating fraud will make things better for them anyway by helping to keep premium costs down."
Of course they leave out:
1) He was lying.
2) Since he is a practiced glib liar there was no hint of stress in his voice at all.
First off, I have to laugh when I read an article where lie detectors are described as "scientific" "sophisticated" and "accurate." They are frequently described as such, but it is clearly not the case. Even proponents, when pressed, always end up admitting that the "lie detector" is supposed to test stress levels; in other words, proponents of lie detectors usually lie in order to push them as a panacea.
Secondly, the biggest, oldest lie any insurance company can tell is that their rates are going to go down if you allow them to implement something. Insurance companies have historically tried to push legislation, promising practically every time that such legislation / policy change / newfound power will result in lower rates (mandatory automobile coverage comes to mind) but it never does. I go so far as to say I would think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a single form of insurance in which rates have *ever* gone down, in fact.
Thirdly, the insurance company says that lie detector tests have been successful in reducing fraud. They do not qualify this at all, but I would think being able to point to a number and say "We were able to deny X million dollars worth of claims on the basis of lie detector tests alone!" would be considered a success, especially considering that the avoidance of paying claims, at any cost, any way they can is a goal to all insurance companies second only to raking in your cash.