Jurors Don’t Hate Insurance Companies As Much As You Might Think – And Other Assumptions We’ve Debunked

We recently conducted focus groups for a case where one of the parties is an insurance company.  Going in, the conventional wisdom was that due to extremely negative juror opinions of large insurance carriers, it will be nearly impossible to get the jury on their side.  And especially given the sheer number of insurance policies the average person holds – some combination of auto, homeowner, life, health, etc. – it was anticipated that negative experiences and biases against insurance companies would overwhelm the discussion and prevent jurors from giving both sides a fair shake.

Furthermore, the case facts involved an insurance company engaging in what could be viewed as “stereotypical” insurer behavior (in this case, denying a large claim less than 48 hours after it was filed), but after digging deeper we learned something surprising.  Although jurors’ negative experiences and perceptions of “insurance companies” in general were out in force, most indicated they were satisfied with their own insurers – and throughout the groups we observed their ability to remain equally open-minded to the insurance company’s story.

Although the majority of focus group participants found against the insurance carrier during final verdicts, the research confirmed it was not due to negative perceptions of insurance companies or dogmatic anti-insurance sentiment.  In fact, the lowest-scoring defense arguments during both sessions centered on some form of “insurance bashing” that attempted to appeal what we had believed beforehand were jurors’ negative perceptions of insurance companies.

We’ve found this in recent healthcare surveys as well.  Even jurors with negative opinions of monolithic health insurance companies – whether driven by horror stories in the press, personal experience or the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act – were generally happy with their own insurer/insured relationships.

The reason we highlight this seemingly counterintuitive disparity between people who hate insurance companies in general but love theirs in particular, is that it reinforces the importance of trial teams not assuming anything about your specific jury pool.

Whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act/”Obamacare,” it’s worth pointing out that one of the central themes of President Obama’s pitch was that those with health insurance could keep their existing policies, and patients could still see their own doctors.  This is a key example of researching and understanding your audience’s pre-existing perceptions, fears, misconceptions and life experiences beforehand, and addressing them up front to ensure that audience keeps an open mind.

Whether your case involves a particular hospital or long-term care facility, a large corporation, a baseball team or even a cruise line, we believe it’s always worth digging below the surface of conventional wisdom to uncover biases and experiences that work both for and against your client, before ever setting foot in a courtroom.

If you’d like our advice on potential predispositions for one of your pending cases, contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at 714-754-1010 or cluna@juryimpact.net.