Editorial methodology

Editorial Methodology

Insurhi scores insurance products and providers using the published IRF rubric: coverage clarity, pricing context, claims speed, service quality, and transparency. Rankings are editorial research—not paid placements.

Playbooks
43 Claim Playbooks
Checklists
269 Checklist Items
Categories
6 Coverage Lines
Coverage briefs
59 Coverage Briefs

Insurhi Rating Framework (IRF)

Five dimensions behind every editorial score

Product and provider pages use the same published rubric. Each dimension is scored from 0–10 by category editors using documented sources—not paid placement or referral relationships.

Weight 30%

Coverage & exclusions

How clearly the policy explains what is covered, which exclusions matter, and whether limits fit typical loss scenarios in the category.

What we check

  • Policy form clarity (declarations, endorsements, key limits)
  • Exclusion transparency for the most common claim types
  • Optional riders and gap risks for typical buyers
  • Alignment between marketing summary and policy wording

Primary sources

  • Insurer policy documents and product brochures
  • State filing summaries where available
  • Insurhi category editor review notes
Weight 25%

Price & value

How competitive and transparent pricing appears for representative profiles—not a single headline quote, but whether cost drivers are explained.

What we check

  • Premium range vs. category benchmarks for sample profiles
  • Discount and surcharge disclosure quality
  • Deductible and limit trade-off clarity
  • Value relative to documented coverage scope

Primary sources

  • Published rate filings and insurer price tools
  • Insurhi premium estimate tables on product pages
  • Public competitor comparisons in the same category
Weight 25%

Claims speed & reliability

Expected claim workflow quality: reporting channels, turnaround signals, supplement handling, and documented denial patterns.

See editorial claims examples

What we check

  • First notice of loss (FNOL) channel quality
  • Average and tail turnaround where disclosed
  • Documentation requirements vs. typical loss types
  • Common delay or denial triggers explained in plain language

Primary sources

  • Carrier claims disclosures and help-center workflows
  • Insurhi claimsTurnaround fields on product pages
  • Regulator complaint summaries and public SLA notes
Weight 15%

Service & support

Accessibility of support during quoting, endorsements, and active claims—including digital tools, agent access, and escalation paths.

What we check

  • Availability of phone, chat, app, or local agent support
  • Self-service quality for policy changes and claim status
  • Hours, response expectations, and escalation transparency
  • Support fit for the product’s target buyer profile

Primary sources

  • Carrier support and contact documentation
  • Digital experience review by category editors
  • Documented service notes on provider profiles
Weight 5%

Transparency & consumer fit

Whether the insurer or product clearly states who it is best for, what is not covered, and how to verify terms before purchase.

What we check

  • Best-for / not-for guidance quality
  • Plain-language summaries of key trade-offs
  • Source citations on product and provider pages
  • Disclosure of data limitations where scores are estimated

Primary sources

  • Insurhi bestFor / notFor editorial fields
  • Linked sources blocks on review pages
  • Editorial methodology alignment checks

How the overall score is calculated

Overall IRF score = (Coverage × 30%) + (Pricing × 25%) + (Claims × 25%) + (Service × 15%) + (Transparency × 5%)

Worked example: Sample auto policy review

Coverage (30%)
8.2
Pricing (25%)
7.8
Claims (25%)
8.0
Service (15%)
8.1
Transparency (5%)
7.9

Example overall IRF

8.0

out of 10

See a live scored product review

Quarterly review

IRF-1.0Q3 2026 review

Published 2026-08-27

First published quarterly IRF review under the institutional research positioning. Expanded product and provider coverage, aligned claims-dimension notes with Phase B playbook library, and documented exclusion criteria for placeholder CMS entities.

  • Scored additional regional and specialty carriers across auto, home, renters, life, Medicare, and pet lines.
  • Published exclusion list for aggregate CMS product placeholders and duplicate provider profiles.
  • Cross-linked claims playbooks and case studies to IRF claims-dimension editorial examples.
  • No weight changes to IRF-1.0 dimension rubric (30/25/25/15/5).

Current framework version: IRF-1.0. View corrections log.

IRF coverage

Scored entities & exclusions

IRF-1.0 scores apply to individual bindable products and carrier profiles. Aggregate CMS placeholders and duplicate provider aliases are excluded intentionally—not left as incomplete data.

Products

60/60

100% of eligible products scored

Providers

40/40

100% of eligible providers scored

Documented exclusions

  • Auto-insurance-products (product)

    CMS aggregate placeholder—not a single bindable product.

  • product-home-insurance (product)

    CMS aggregate placeholder—not a single bindable product.

  • state-farm-auto (provider)

    Canonical provider profile is state-farm; duplicate entity excluded from separate IRF scoring.

Claims research

Claims research methodology

Insurhi claims research documents what policyholders should prepare before FNOL, how denials arise, and what evidence reverses or prevents adverse outcomes—using anonymized scenarios, not mystery-shopper audits.

Anonymization

Case studies remove names, policy numbers, and geographic identifiers that could identify individuals or specific claims files.

Documentation-first

Each playbook lists required documents, timing windows, and common denial triggers tied to policy concepts—not generic advice.

Source alignment

Playbooks reference carrier disclosure patterns and state-agnostic policy mechanics. We do not reproduce proprietary claim manuals.

Lessons, not outcomes

Cases publish 2–4 editorial takeaways focused on file preparation—not guarantees of payment or appeal success.

IRF linkage

Claims dimension scores (25% IRF weight) incorporate how clearly carriers explain documentation requirements, validated against our public playbook library.

Limitations

  • We do not file claims, negotiate settlements, or provide legal representation.
  • Case outcomes reflect anonymized editorial research—not a statistically representative sample of all claims.
  • Carrier practices vary by state, policy form, and adjuster; readers must confirm with official policy documents.

See also: Claims library, Editorial standards, and IRF claims examples.

IRF claims dimension in practice

How editorial claims content informs scores

The IRF “Claims speed & reliability” dimension (25% weight) is not only carrier turnaround data on product pages. Editors also score how clearly carriers explain documentation requirements, denial patterns, and escalation paths — validated against our public playbooks and case library.

Claims documentation media brief

Journalists can cite our universal FNOL checklist and scenario guidance — downloadable as plain text.

Download checklist (.txt)

How we work

From policy research to published guidance

Insurhi is built for readers who need clarity before a purchase or a claim—not marketing copy dressed up as advice.

01

Source the policy evidence

Researchers compare carrier forms, state filings, public disclosures, and documented claim workflows before drafting.

02

Write for real decisions

Guides and comparisons focus on coverage limits, exclusions, pricing context, and claim triggers—not generic finance advice.

03

Expert category review

Each piece is reviewed by a named expert focused on the relevant line—auto, property, life, Medicare, pet, or claims.

04

Publish and correct

Material updates and reader corrections are reviewed against source documents and republished through our editorial workflow.

Limitations & disclaimer

What IRF scores are—and are not

  • IRF scores are editorial research ratings produced by Insurhi reviewers, not regulator or government grades.
  • Premium scores reflect published ranges and transparency for sample profiles; your quoted price may differ.
  • Claims and service scores use documented carrier disclosures and editor review—they are not mystery-shopper audits of every branch.
  • Partnerships and affiliate links do not change dimension weights or overall IRF calculations.
  • Always confirm coverage, exclusions, and pricing with official policy documents before purchase.

Methodology FAQ

Are Insurhi scores official insurance ratings?

No. Insurhi scores are editorial research ratings produced by our category reviewers. They are not regulator grades, J.D. Power scores, or financial-strength ratings unless we explicitly cite those sources.

Why do you use five dimensions instead of a single star rating?

A single star score hides trade-offs. Coverage, price, claims handling, service, and transparency often move in different directions. The Insurhi Rating Framework (IRF) keeps those trade-offs visible.

Do partners or advertisers influence scores?

No. Commercial relationships do not change dimension weights or product placement. When affiliate links exist, they are disclosed separately from editorial scoring.

What scale do you use?

Each dimension is scored from 0 to 10 (one decimal). The overall IRF score is a weighted average of all five dimensions using the published weights on this page.

How often are scores updated?

Flagship products and major providers are reviewed at least quarterly, or sooner when policy forms, pricing filings, or claims workflow disclosures change materially.

Why is a dimension missing on some pages?

We only display dimension scores when editors have enough source-backed evidence for that line. Missing dimensions are omitted rather than estimated without support.

Full methodology

Detailed editorial standards

This page explains how Insurhi reviews insurance products, providers, and claims content. Our goal is to give consumers transparent, reproducible comparisons—not paid placements or vague rankings.

What we evaluate

  • Coverage clarity: what is insured, key exclusions, and which scenarios matter to typical readers.
  • Pricing context: ranges and scenarios rather than a single headline number, so readers can map cost to their situation.
  • Claim experience: workflow expectations, documented SLA behavior, and common reasons for delay or denial.
  • Consumer suitability: who each option fits and who should look elsewhere—no universal winners.

How we score

  • Each product is evaluated on the four dimensions above with consistent rubrics across the same insurance category.
  • Scores are derived from public filings, regulatory disclosures, insurer documentation, and structured user feedback.
  • We do not weight products higher because of advertising, partnerships, or referral relationships.

Where our data comes from

  • Insurer policy documents, declarations pages, and product brochures.
  • Public state insurance department filings and regulator complaint summaries.
  • Industry reports and verified consumer surveys; we cite sources with publication dates.
  • Editor-conducted scenario testing (quote sampling, claim workflow walkthroughs) where applicable.

How often we update

  • Buying guides and methodology: reviewed at least every 12 months and after material market changes.
  • Product pages: reviewed at least every 6 months; pricing context refreshed when carriers publish new filings.
  • Claims guides: reviewed at least every 12 months; updated promptly when regulators change procedures.
  • Each article shows its last-updated date so readers can judge timeliness at a glance.

Independence and disclosures

  • Rankings and recommendations are independent from advertising and partnerships.
  • When affiliate or partner relationships exist, they are disclosed in a clearly labeled notice.
  • We never accept payment in exchange for a higher score, ranking position, or hidden product placement.

Editorial standards

  • We avoid absolute claims like ‘guaranteed lowest price’ or ‘100% claim approval.’
  • We do not fabricate user reviews or rating distributions.
  • We separate facts (limits, exclusions, filings) from editorial interpretation.
  • We invite corrections; readers can email editorial@insurhi.com and we aim to review within 48 hours.

Limitations to keep in mind

Insurance products vary by state, age, vehicle, property, and personal history. Our content is educational and does not replace official policy wording, a licensed agent's advice, or your insurer's underwriting decision. Always read the full policy and confirm coverage before purchase.

Reach the editorial team

Have a correction, data tip, or methodology question? Email editorial@insurhi.com. We acknowledge corrections in the article footer when accepted.

Editor-reviewed mid-July 2026: Insurhi refreshes product and provider profiles on a quarterly cadence, publishes weekly buying and claims guides, and labels AI-assisted drafts with human editorial review. We do not accept payment for rankings.

Editorial independence

Research-first guidance, not paid rankings

Commercial relationships never determine product placement. Our experts score coverage clarity, pricing context, and claim experience using a documented methodology—and readers can challenge our work.

Corrections & reader feedback

Found an error or outdated policy detail? Email our editorial desk. Material corrections are reviewed against source documents and updated through our published workflow.