Allstate is back under fire over its McKinsey-built claims playbook, this time in a New Mexico hail denial.
Richard Hill, a Las Cruces homeowner, sued Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company in the US District Court for the District of New Mexico on May 25, 2026. He claims the carrier wrongly denied two windstorm and hail claims on his House & Home policy, and that the denials were driven by Allstate's Claims Core Process Redesign program - CCPR for short.
Hill's property at 2023 Pinetrail Street was insured under Policy No. 429 694 247, with Dwelling Protection (Coverage A) of $280,195 and a $500 windstorm and hail deductible. According to the complaint, a New Mexico endorsement, AVP307, provides for payment of covered dwelling losses on a replacement cost basis - no depreciation deduction, no requirement to finish repairs first. The policy also covers "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" from windstorm and hail, the filing says.
The first hit came on June 30, 2024. Allstate assigned Claim No. 0760716076 and sent an adjuster on July 8, 2024. The estimate came back at $0.00. The denial letter blamed wear and tear, aging, and deterioration, and said the inspection "did not find any damage consistent with wind or hail."
According to the complaint, Allstate's own agency was uneasy. Victoria Salgado at the Albert Aveytia Agency told Allstate the inspection photos showed only address verification - no roof shots at all. She called the lack of roof documentation "very unprofessional," the filing says.
A second storm hit on July 13, 2025. Hill brought in A Quest for Public Adjusters, which documented hail impacts to the flat modified bitumen roof, damage to parapet walls, stucco, rock wall mortar, wood fence, fascia board and garage door trim, and water intrusion through hail-created openings in the roof. The Xactimate estimate came to $130,817.86 in replacement cost value. It was submitted as proof of loss on January 12, 2026.
Allstate denied the second claim on January 8, 2026 - four days before receiving the final demand. The denial cited the same exclusions and, per the complaint, said the conditions observed were "noted to be present during prior claim 0760716076." The filing alleges Allstate's adjuster Parker told the public adjuster by phone the same day that the damage was "the same as 2024."
For insurers, the real story is what Hill says drove all of this. The complaint alleges Allstate's claims operation runs on CCPR, a system McKinsey & Company built for the carrier in the early 1990s. The program, Hill says, was designed "not to improve the accuracy or fairness of claim evaluations, but to systematically reduce the amounts Allstate paid to policyholders on covered claims."
The filing lists what it calls the program's hallmarks: predetermined claim values pegged to profit goals, adjusters trained to invoke exclusions "wherever plausible regardless of whether they were factually supported," and a "Good Hands / Boxing Gloves" strategy - a cooperative face in front, hardball litigation behind. Hill also alleges Allstate weighed the program's "balance of risk and reward" and decided the profits from underpaying claims would outweigh any bad faith exposure.
Hill is suing for breach of contract, violation of the New Mexico Unfair Insurance Practices Act, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the New Mexico Insurance Code, and common law fraud and fraudulent concealment tied to the pre-sale concealment of the CCPR program.
The complaint also takes aim at the policy's one-year suit limitation provision, arguing it should be tolled or treated as unenforceable because Allstate kept the supplement process open after the first denial and never communicated a final position before the year ran out.
Allstate has not yet filed a response. The allegations have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on the merits.
