Now, I wonder why this is written as it is. "The Campbells said--" It would imply that there is some doubt that this is actual fact. The reporter is being careful, for fear of getting himself into trouble. I'd like to know if this assertion was proven, or only suggested. At least, if there was a finding as to this fact, why would something so significant be left out of the story?
CP writes: ...then subject them to losses due to a bonus program and try to destroy the records of it later, then yes, you have acted fraudulently.
Well, I believe this is not a tort, but a very serious crime. Help me out here, isn't destroying evidence very serious? These guys are in jail now, right?
Incentives to vigorously defend are not in themselves fraud. Inconvenient to plaintiff's lawyers, but not a crime. Yet.
When a claim comes up, and you have an opportunity to resolve the matter within the terms of the policy, you decline to do so, opting to roll the dice with your insured's assets - because after all, it isn't going to cost you any more money than the limits, and you can always get lucky and beat it. Once you lose (and lose big), you make it difficult for your customers to collect the excess, in the hopes that they'll just go away, and gambling on a certain percentage doing that.
Yep, it looks fraudulent to me as a matter of civil law.