Which of the following is considered a valid defense against unfair claims practices?

Providing timely explanations for claim denials serves as a valid defense against unfair claims practices because it demonstrates transparency and fair dealing on the part of the insurer. By offering clear and prompt communication outlining the reasons for the denial, the insurer shows that it has acted in good faith and follows proper protocols. This practice helps to build trust with the claimant and is a key aspect of fair claims handling, emphasizing the importance of communication in managing expectations and responsibilities.

In contrast, intransigence on the part of the claimant could indicate a refusal to cooperate, but it does not provide a legitimate defense for the insurer's claims handling. Similarly, pressure from third-party observers does not justify any failure in the insurer's responsibilities to process claims fairly or promptly. Ignoring communication from the claimant outright is detrimental to the claims process, undermining the insurer's duty to engage with clients and address their concerns professionally. These alternative actions typically reflect poor claims practices rather than valid defenses.