Most likely fake revenue. I have a friend in a related industry. If company A wants to sell a piece of junk for $1 to company B, then B will most likely refuse. But, if company A offers that piece of junk for $1 plus an exchange of $20,000,000 in both directions (no real cash is moved because it nets out to zero), then company B will love it. Both company A and company B can post that $20,000,000 as "revenue". Revenue is among the easiest things to fake. They say money doesn't grow on trees, and that's true for profits because profits is real money. But revenue is fake money. Revenue and fake money /do/ grow on trees. And companies get into deals with other companies for just sloshing fake money around between each other to drive up their revenue. It's a big scam since the 1980s when the issue of "transfer-asset-pricing" came on the radar. But no one knows how to fix it. So companies routinely get into such deals. That's why Warren Buffet ignores revenue and just looks at profits when assessing companies. But many other investors care about revenue, which means companies love to get into shenanigans to print insane revenue.
The alternative, which is also possible, is bribery. If the insurance company knows it's worth millions, rather than paying millions, they can just find a paper pushing VP at the car company, throw him a $300,000 of "gifts" on the down-low, plus a token $26,000 to the car company, and get a contract signed and save themselves from having to spend millions! So long as it's relatively hush-hush and not many in the car company know they got jipped with a $26,000 contract that should be worth millions, it'll fly under the radar.
Both are terrible. But the former is legal and widespread, while the latter is illegal but unfortunately all too common.