The art of the non-apology

Remember last Wednesday, when I discovered that some sort of clerical error at an insurance company had caused us to fall afoul of their subrogation department? I do not think I managed to convey the arrogant accusatory awfulness of the man I spoke to on the phone. Brief recap: I hung up on him; I called my insurance company; I left him an icy voicemail. When he called me back I sent him straight to voicemail.

His message had been sitting on my phone for a week, because I did not want to hear the sound of his voice again. I kept thinking about asking someone else to listen to it for me. I was pretty sure it would be ignorable, but not 100% sure. Yesterday I finally bit the bullet and played the message.

"I called Geico," said his recorded voice, "and it turns out that you did have coverage for that date. Sorry for any confusion."

Sorry for any confusion.

He needed to apologize for completely misreading the situation. For insulting my husband. For insinuating that I was deliberately  misleading him. For threatening me with legal consequences for an offense I never committed. For cackling at me like a Speed Racer villain. Confusion was never the issue -- it was more the tachycardic fury.

There's been a change in the way that people apologize, with the prominence of "I'm sorry you were upset" as the prime example. There have been lots of shifts in the ways we use polite language since I was a kid -- I don't remember anyone saying "thanks in advance" in those days, for instance. Language changes; I get that. I'm curious about the rise of the non-apology, though. 

Questions:

1. Is this a real change? Is it accurate to say that the non-apology is a newish thing?
2. Is it related to changes in patterns of conflict resolution? Here's the specific thing I'm thinking about: men used to have the option of punching each other in the face when they didn't want to apologize for something. Nobody says "Do you want to step outside and say that?" in my part of the world these days. A non-apology might be a face-saving way to de-escalate.
3. Does the increase of non-apologies correspond to increasing societal litigiousness? Your car insurance company will tell you not to apologize if you cause a crash, because they don't want you to say anything that could be construed as accepting responsibility. Is the non-apology just a thing that happens in a world where a genuine apology might land you in court?
4. What fraction of non-apologies are a purposeful exercise in undercutting the actual meaning of the words "I'm sorry"? Did this insurance guy know that he was getting it wrong and do it anyway? Or did he not know that it would have been more appropriate to say "I am sorry for speaking to you with the inarticulate incivility of a walrus in need of a root canal. I will try harder to act like a human being in the future"? I'm still wondering.