Talk:Allstate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] buyblue.org links

Please refer to this discussion as to why the link has been reverted. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV questions

Yea the scientology section is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too in-depth. That needs to be changed.

The scientology portion of the article is too long given that it wasn't a famous incident. For comparisions, look at the New York Life article. It discusses how the company was once in the business of insuring slaves in it's early days. This part of the company's history is only a paragraph, which is appropriate. The scientology portion should not be any longer than that. For links about this, the San Francisco Chronicle and info.insure.com are fine.

In addition, some of the links are not exactly neutral themselves. In particular, the Lermanet links discuss how Allstate is a corrupt company. Whether or not the company actually is doesn't mean we should have links to a biased website. Other auto insurers, State Farm, GEICO and Progressive Corporation do not have as many links at the bottom of their pages. Farmers Insurance does, but it is done is much more neutral tone (only one critical link). I would keep the Allstate sucks link, because Farmers has one and add appropriate critcal websites to some of the other insurers that don't currently have one, and delete the Lermanet links.Patken4 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

After reading the recent additions by User:Maureen D, it looks there are two issues being presented. One is how scientology, and it's Management by Statistics, was used at Allstate. This can be condensed to:

Between 1988 and 1995, Allstate used Management by Statistics program to grade it's employees. The program, which is derived from Scientology, was implemented with the help of Don Pearson. In 1994, a group of Allstate agents objected to the program use because of religious discrimination issues. It's use was later disavowed by President Jerry Choate.

I think that is far more neutral than what is currently in the article. A lot of the information in this portion could be added to an article about Management by Statistics because of lot of it has nothing to do with Allstate. In this new article, Allstate's mention should probably relate to the fact that it used the program and how it was eliminated from training materials. Citations for this in the Allstate article portion by come from the links I listed yesterday.

The second issue is the process of claims review, which I don't see have any connection to the scientology portion. This should be it's own section and more neutral. While Allstate was the first to use Colossus, many other auto insurers also use(d?) it. The cited article is from 2000, and research should be done to see if these companies still use it. The Allstate Claim Core Process review portion is basically direct quotes from other sources. This needs to be reworded at the very least. Given that claims processing is always going to be a source of contention between insurance companies and customers, it may not be necessary to add.Patken4 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep the above proposed changes here for a few days. If you have a problem with my scientology change, please post it here. Otherwise, I will assume the change is appropriate and make the change accordingly. Thanks. Patken4 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Since no one objected, in fact one person agreed to proposed changes, I made the changes discussed above, including shortening Scientology portion, added claims review, and deleted biased websites. Patken4 23:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting sites critical of Allstate's claims practices? These are legitimate sites that anyone insterested in allstate should be aware off.

  • Because currently almost half of this article is criticism of Allstate and it's practices, currently pretty NPOV, I don't know enough to add anything myself thoughElementalos (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My question would be why is there so much criticism, when other companies have complaints that aren't listed. Sure looks like a negative bias spin to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.127.163.142 (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to external sites

I removed some material that was linked to sites that were very questionable per wp:el. Those sites look like they are self published and not reliable per wp:rs. Anyways, we can and should do alot better. I am no fan of Allstate, but we need to keep it as encyclopediatic as possible. Thanks! --Tom 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allstate claim's practices caused consumers to create some of the first corporate complaint web sites ever. While these web sites are self published and are not the best looking web sites I have ever seen they have relevant information that should be included. Otherwise stated, "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." These web sites contain just the sort of information that should be linked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.68.213.34 (talk • contribs).

I'm sure that every large insurance company in existence has a criticism site; it's the nature of the business. The links do not meet WP:EL guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that this site was just removed. Now this might be more debatable imo. Any other thoughts?? Thanks --Tom 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a more reputable site, such as Better Business Bureau. This doesn't give details of each complaint, but the number of unresolved complaints for various issues. We can't like them all, but BBB also has reports for each Allstate insurance office [1]. Some state insurance agencies also compile rankings of insurance companies, based on complaints [2] [3]. --Aude (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with BBB and gov agency links, positive or critical. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Allstate and State Farm are the only insurance companies with corporate complaint web sites that I am aware of. In fact, Allstate has several corporate complaint web sites. These sites seem to meet the guidelines of having meaningful and relevant content. The bad faith web site also seems to have relevant and meaningful content. Also, linking fifty insurance regulatory web sits or who knows how many BBB web sites to this entry seems unworkable. Moreover, many of the disputes with Allstate end up in courts and not before the BBB or a department of insurance. This wikipedia entry site seems to whitewash Allstate's presence as a bad actor within the marketplace. Ford makes a lot of defective cars, Allstate hardballs all of its claims and this entry seems to ignore this.

As mentioned earlier, self-published complaint sites do not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the corporate complaint sites do meet the WP:Reliable sources guidlines. Otherwise stated, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." As previously discussed Allstate's corporate complaint web sites are well known, non-scholarly and relevant.

[edit] Awards section

I removed this since there were no sources. Thanks, --Tom 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This qualifies as an article?

→This seems to be less an article about Allstate than it is a complaint session. No real information on the lines of insurance sold or its decisions inrelation to the rest of the industry. All this tells us is it has been reactionary about its property and casualty losses. Its not a very professional looking piece. A quick search of the internet produces similar complaints about most major insurance companies. Aegiltheugly 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I've added a few positive reports of Allstate to the article, so it isn't just a complaint-fest. 68.115.194.132 16:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

Thresher 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I fail to understand why this is mentioned:

"An investigative report in February 2007 by CNN found that major car insurance companies, lead by State Farm and Allstate Insurance, are increasingly fighting auto insurance claims from those who incurred soft-tissue injuries by their insured members.[6]"

Insurance companies have a vested interest in not paying for questionable injuries. Every dollar that is paid on a non-meritorious claim rewards people for anti-social behavior. All insurance companies have a duty to society to not pay more than they owe. Additionally, insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders, or in the case a of a mutual company, their policy holders to pay only what is truly owed because insurance policy costs are directly affected by the underwriting history.

Soft tissue injuries are contentious because by their nature, there is no way to actually detect the purported injury. Insurance companies look at each claim individually. If they see a claim for soft injuries on a car with little or no damage, would it not make sense for the company to investigate it further? Would it not make sense for the company to question whether or not an injury actually occurred as a result of the accident?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thresher (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Allstate svg1.svg

Image:Allstate svg1.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Soft tissue "injuries" are often a double-whammy because in order to increase their potential settlement, "injured" victims will often make numerous trips to the doctor for treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.222.1 (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)