50% of Policyholders Are Skipping Insurance Claims and Paying the Price

Most drivers assume filing a claim is always the smart move, yet a sweeping new survey reveals that half of all policyholders have quietly walked away from at least one valid claim they were entitled to file.

That finding, reported by Autobody News and drawn from a LendingTree survey published September 28, puts skipping insurance claims at the center of a growing behavioral shift in how Americans handle vehicle and home damage. The survey polled 2,000 U.S. consumers between August 5 and 9, conducted by QuestionPro for LendingTree. Autobody News notes that car insurance was the policy type most frequently involved, accounting for 73% of the most recent skipped-claim decisions, compared with just 27% involving homeowners policies.

Half of Policyholders Have Quietly Walked Away From a Valid Claim

The numbers tell a striking story about consumer behavior and insurance anxiety. Half of U.S. consumers carrying auto or home coverage say they have skipped at least one eligible claim, either by never filing at all or by starting the process and not following through.

That is not a fringe behavior. That is the mainstream.

The Save Max Quote Index, drawn from 3.3 million+ real quote requests, consistently shows that rate anxiety is one of the top reasons drivers change carriers or let policies lapse. The pattern surfacing in the LendingTree survey aligns closely with what the SMQI captures at the shopping stage: policyholders are making financial calculations around their coverage long before they ever call their insurer.

Of those who skipped a claim, an overwhelming 73% said they likely would have gone ahead with filing had they known it would leave their rates, discounts, policy renewal terms, and ability to get coverage later completely untouched. That single data point reframes the entire issue. This is not about drivers gaming the system. It is about drivers operating with incomplete or inaccurate information about how claims actually affect their policies.

Why Younger Drivers Are Leading the Claim-Avoidance Trend

The generational gap here is striking and deserves close attention.

Among Gen Z policyholders ages 18 to 29, a remarkable 84% reported passing on at least one eligible claim. Compare that with 63% of millennials, 40% of Gen Xers, and just 27% of baby boomers. That is nearly a 60-percentage-point spread between the youngest and oldest cohorts.

Why such a wide gap? Younger drivers face a compounding set of pressures. They tend to be newer to the insurance market, carry less institutional knowledge about how claims work, and are often on tighter budgets where a rate increase feels like a genuine financial threat. They are also more likely to be driving older or lower-value vehicles, making the cost-benefit math on filing feel riskier.

Baby boomers, by contrast, have decades of experience managing policies and are more likely to understand when a claim will or will not move the needle on their premiums. Experience, not just income, appears to be a significant driver of this divide.

For younger drivers in high-cost states, this anxiety is especially acute. California auto insurance premiums, for instance, have climbed sharply in recent years, giving Gen Z policyholders there even more reason to fear any action that might trigger a rate review.

The Real Reasons Policyholders Hold Back

When the survey asked claim avoiders to name their primary reason for not filing, the answers clustered into four distinct behavioral categories. Here is how they broke down:

Each of these motivations reflects a different mental model about how insurance works.

The rate-hike fear, cited by 24% of avoiders, is the most emotionally driven reason. Policyholders imagine a claims adjuster flagging their file, a letter arriving with a higher premium, and a multi-year financial penalty for a single incident. Sometimes that fear is grounded. Often it is not.

The deductible math, cited by 23%, is a more rational calculation. If your deductible is $1,000 and the repair estimate is $1,100, paying out of pocket looks attractive. What this math does not always account for is the long-term risk of unrepaired structural damage or liability exposure.

The "too small to bother" reasoning, at 22%, reflects a healthy instinct in some cases and a costly blind spot in others.

Most interesting is the 13% who were explicitly advised by a professional, such as an insurance agent, contractor, or repair shop, not to file. That guidance is sometimes sound and sometimes self-serving, depending on the professional's interests.

What Claim Avoiders Actually Do Instead, and What It Costs Them

Choosing to skip a claim does not make the problem disappear. It redirects the financial burden directly onto the policyholder.

Thirty-four percent of claim avoiders paid $1,000 or more out of pocket. Fifteen percent spent at least $2,500. Those are not trivial sums, especially when weighed against the uncertain premium impact that drove the decision to skip in the first place.

When avoiders were asked what they actually did to handle the damage, the most common answer was fixing the problem themselves (29%). Another 23% paid the full cost out of pocket, 20% chose a less expensive fix as a compromise, and 18% never made the repair at all.

That last figure is worth pausing on. Nearly one in five claim avoiders simply left the damage unresolved. For minor cosmetic issues, that may be inconsequential. For structural or mechanical damage, it can compound into a far more expensive problem down the road.

LendingTree insurance expert Rob Bhatt offered one legitimate reason to self-pay for minor damage:

"Paying for minor damage yourself helps keep a small fender bender that you've fixed from reducing your car's resale value."

That is a real consideration for drivers planning to sell or trade in their vehicle. An accident appearing on a vehicle history report can reduce resale value, and avoiding that record has measurable financial logic. But it applies specifically to minor, cosmetic damage you can afford to fix properly. It does not apply to damage you leave unrepaired.

The emotional math is also complicated. Thirty-seven percent of avoiders said they regret passing on the claim. Forty percent believe they made the right call. Just 16% reported no clear negative effects from skipping, and 18% said the issue worsened over time.

When Skipping a Claim Actually Makes Sense, and When It Doesn't

Not every claim should be filed. But the decision requires more nuance than most policyholders apply.

LendingTree's Rob Bhatt broke down how fault shapes the rate-impact equation in auto insurance:

"For car insurance, a claim over something that wasn't your fault usually has a smaller impact on your rates than claims over accidents you cause. For example, some companies won't raise your rates over a small comprehensive claim for damage to a window or vandalism. A claim from an accident caused entirely by another driver usually doesn't increase your car insurance rate either. However, most states have partial-fault laws. Your rates may go up if your insurance company had to pay for a portion of your repairs due to your partial fault."

This creates a practical framework. Comprehensive claims for weather damage, theft, vandalism, or a cracked windshield carry lower rate-increase risk than at-fault collision claims. A not-at-fault accident involving another driver's full responsibility typically carries even less risk.

Where skipping genuinely makes sense: the repair cost is close to or below your deductible, the damage is cosmetic and fully repairable out of pocket, there is no liability to a third party, and you are planning to sell the vehicle and want a clean history report.

Where skipping backfires: the damage is structural or mechanical, the repair cost significantly exceeds your deductible, there is any ambiguity about fault or third-party involvement, or you simply cannot afford to absorb the out-of-pocket cost.

Drivers in states with stricter partial-fault rules, such as those using contributory negligence standards, face particular complexity. Texas auto insurance rules around fault and liability, for example, can make the claim-or-not decision significantly more consequential than in states with more forgiving frameworks. Similarly, Florida auto insurance operates under a no-fault system that changes the calculus entirely for personal injury claims.

How Filers Fared: Mixed Outcomes for Those Who Did File

For every driver sweating the decision to skip, it is worth looking at what actually happened to those who filed.

Forty percent of policyholders in the survey said they had filed an auto or home claim within the last five years. Of those who did file, 46% said the insurer's payment matched their expectations. That is encouraging, but less than half.

Thirty-three percent said they received less than they anticipated. Twenty-six percent said the insurer denied a claim outright. And 27% said filing led to a premium increase.

So claim avoiders' fears are not entirely unfounded. A meaningful share of filers did experience outcomes that validated the caution. But the key distinction is this: 46% of filers got what they expected, while 73% of avoiders said they would have filed had they known their rates would be unaffected. The perceived risk is systematically higher than the realized risk.

A separate LendingTree survey from 2024 reinforces the scale of this behavior: 39% of insured drivers involved in a crash or other covered incident paid for repairs themselves rather than going through insurance. Claim avoidance is not a new phenomenon. It is entrenched.

For drivers in markets where premiums are already elevated, the stakes of a misinformed decision compound. Michigan auto insurance shoppers, for instance, operate in one of the highest-cost insurance environments in the country, where a rate increase from a filed claim can feel particularly punishing but where uninsured repair costs are also steeper.

What this means for you

Before you absorb a repair bill out of pocket, run the actual numbers: get a repair estimate, compare it against your deductible, and then call your insurer to ask directly whether a claim of this type and fault level has historically affected rates for your policy. Use the fault framework Bhatt outlined to assess your real risk exposure, because a not-at-fault or comprehensive claim often carries far less premium impact than fear suggests. If you decide to skip, make sure you can afford a proper repair, not a partial fix or no fix at all, since unresolved damage rarely stays inexpensive. Review your coverage limits and deductible levels annually so that the deductible-versus-repair math works in your favor when an incident actually happens.

FAQ

About Brooke Grissom

Brooke Grissom is an Independent Insurance Analyst at Save Max Auto, licensed in Property & Casualty and Health insurance. She covers data-driven market trends, cross-state premium comparisons, and carrier financial analysis. Read more from Brooke Grissom →

Edited by Cassidy Richey.

Methodology

This article is grounded in the source linked above. Save Max Auto data points referenced here are drawn from the Save Max Quote Index (SMQI), a proprietary instrument reflecting 3,364,317 real consumer quote requests submitted to savemaxauto.com. State and carrier rankings reflect the lifetime dataset; year-over-year shifts reflect a rolling 12-month window. The index is refreshed monthly. External authority figures referenced (NAIC, NHTSA, state regulators) reflect the most recent public data releases available at time of writing.

Sources

• Primary source: Autobody News, "LendingTree Survey: Half of Auto, Home Policyholders Have Skipped a Claim"