# Did Progressive do something bad by being adverse to it's insured? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772 "2012-08-17T13:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/101 "2012-08-24T12:33:25Z")
What is a dec page? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/102 "2012-08-24T12:50:53Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > What is a dec page? Sorry, insurance-speak. The declaration (dec) page is the first page of a policy where it will list out things like who the named insured is, limits of coverage, policy dates, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/103 "2012-08-24T13:21:54Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > With respect, the key assumption is the last part of the first paragraph, i.e,. that Progressive “attempted to prevent [Fisher’s estate] from recovering from the party that was **clearly at fault**.” Sorry, that was extraneous. I would have just as big a problem with it if the defendant was not at fault, absent collusion between Fisher and the defendant or something. > [@](#): > > I’m sure you understand (but some of the Progressive bashers seem not to), that Fisher didn’t have a personal injury policy. That would have been simple (and more expensive). Rather, she had a relatively cheap policy which covered only underinsured liability. _shrug_ That’s what it was _for_, though - to protect her from the negligence of others. > [@](#): > > FWIW, I’m not in the insurance business and, so, have no dog in this fight. But I think, overall, \*\*jtgain’s \*\*point is sound. I _am_ in the insurance business. In fact, I work at a civil defense law firm that is currently defending 22 insurance bad faith claims. Trust me when I say I’m not adverse to liability insurers. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/104 "2012-08-24T21:24:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _shrug_ That’s what it was _for_, though - to protect her from the negligence of others. Or in Maryland, to protect her when she is _0% negligent for the incident that caused her injuries_. I can agree, and I think I’ve said as much, Progressive may have made a bad call in assessing some liability against their insured. We don’t know the facts of the accident, so nobody’s really qualified to say they did it wrong. However, given at least one insurance company already jumped on the hook for 100% Progressive disagreed at their own peril. I have no great love for Progressive, but if the law says 1% = $0, then you kind of have an ethical and contractural duty to make sure that 1% doesn’t exist. But the REAL problem is the negligence law as it exists in the states named above. Whether or not you love insurance, you gotta admit that’s worth changing. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/105 "2012-08-25T05:20:47Z")
**Cheesesteak** : Your suggestion ([Post #99](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15418067&postcount=99)) seems to be that Progressive should have sat on the sidelines and been bound by a judgment in an action to which it was not a party. That’s not how it usually works. If they’re going to be bound by the judgment, they have a right to intervene. Which, I presume, is why the court allowed it. **RNATB** : Okay, now that we’ve gotten “clearly at fault” out of the way, let’s talk about procedure. Your original suggestion ([Post #93](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15416926&postcount=93)), was that “I assume, without being certain, that Progressive could have relitigated the matter after the fact to avoid paying on the claim. If not, and it would have been claim precluded (or whatever) by not intervening in the original litigation, then their actions were legal, but still not _ethical_.” First, even if this assumption is correct, Progressive’s requiring the Fisher estate to bring and prevail in two separate lawsuits seems to me far more burdensome and unfair than its intervening in the first. Second, there’s good reason to be skeptical about the assumption. Others have stated that, in Maryland, the insured has no direct right of action against the insurer in this situation. This implies Progressive would have been bound by a judgment against the driver, just as **Cheesesteak** would have it. I don’t see any other way such a restriction could work. Third, this is your field, not mine, but do you actually counsel your insurer clients to sit on the sidelines as their interests are decided? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2012, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/106 "2012-08-25T10:33:21Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > **Cheesesteak** : Your suggestion ([Post #99](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15418067&postcount=99)) seems to be that Progressive should have sat on the sidelines and been bound by a judgment in an action to which it was not a party. That’s not how it usually works. If they’re going to be bound by the judgment, they have a right to intervene. They are bound by a contract which suggests they will pay in the event that I am legally entitled to money from an un/underinsured person. Insurance companies are bound by events they are not party to all the time, like hurricanes. A hurricane hits a house of one of their clients, the insurance company sits on the sidelines and waits for the outcome. Then they review the results and (hopefully) pay out according to the terms of their contract. Why is a car accident liability different than a hurricane? The fact that they CAN stick their nose in to change the judgement doesn’t mean it’s the right way to manage these situations. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/107 "2012-08-26T04:56:49Z")
Interesting that you snipped the last sentence of the quoted paragraph. What the court apparently held was that Progressive, like everyone else, has a right to participate in a legal proceeding which would determine its liability. They’d have the same right in a legal dispute over a hurricane. So would you. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/108 "2012-08-26T13:26:27Z")
It would be interesting to know if Progressive’s rates for uninsured/under-insured motorist coverage in MD are significantly lower than what they charge in non-1% states. I’m guessing not, but no cite. And, for those stating the policy-holder should have read her policy - maybe she did. But then you are also apparently holding her to knowing about the relevant MD statute that limits coverage to only cases where the other driver is 100% at fault. That seems a high standard, especially since only 8% of states hold that standard any more. That’s where I think the company owed a responsibility to the policy holder to make that distinction clear before selling the coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/109 "2012-08-27T14:13:29Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > That seems a high standard, especially since only 8% of states hold that standard any more. That’s where I think the company owed a responsibility to the policy holder to make that distinction clear before selling the coverage. Her knowledge or ignorance of her state’s laws has no bearing on whether or not they still apply to her. Is it the insurance agent’s job to educate her on every potentially applicable state statute? What if they do try this, and miss one or two? Now they’ve established a business practice of teaching law to policyholders and are potentially liable for the omission–and they’re not even in the business of teaching law! I’m not being absurd, this is how stuff can work out in civil court. Perhaps it should have (or maybe it even did) come up on her licensing exam? Or maybe she DID know about it but, what with being dead and all, couldn’t explain it to her family members. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/110 "2012-08-27T15:48:31Z")
> [@Inigo\_Montoya](#): > > Her knowledge or ignorance of her state’s laws has no bearing on whether or not they still apply to her. Is it the insurance agent’s job to educate her on every potentially applicable state statute? What if they do try this, and miss one or two? Now they’ve established a business practice of teaching law to policyholders and are potentially liable for the omission–and they’re not even in the business of teaching law! I’m not being absurd, this is how stuff can work out in civil court. Perhaps it should have (or maybe it even did) come up on her licensing exam? Or maybe she DID know about it but, what with being dead and all, couldn’t explain it to her family members. Her being dead does, of course, make this a lot more hypothetical. For instance, I’d wager small money that, when she was sold the uninsured motorist policy, her agent told her that it would cover her if she was ever in an accident and the other driver didn’t have sufficient insurance. I’d wager equally small money that he didn’t even mutter under his breath “assuming he is 100% at fault”. I might even put a double size wager on the agent not knowing that twist (particularly if she bought over the phone - which is how I think Progressive does a lot of their sales?). Progressive had the legal right to attempt to not pay out, but I think they sold a pig in a poke to their policy holder. They don’t need to educate their customers in the law, but I think they do have an obligation to clearly explain what will and won’t be covered - and I doubt they did that (no cite). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/111 "2012-08-27T15:57:11Z")
The “100% at fault” standard is not some sort of arcane formula implied into uninsured motorist policies. It’s called contributory negligence, and it’s the basis for apportioning liability in all tort claims in Maryland. The same limitation exists in any MD insurance policy. ---
**Author:** ![Ruby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/13edae/32.png) [@Ruby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruby)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/112 "2012-08-28T02:49:07Z")
> [@Folacin](#): > > \Progressive had the legal right to attempt to not pay out, but I think they sold a pig in a poke to their policy holder. They don’t need to educate their customers in the law, but I think they do have an obligation to clearly explain what will and won’t be covered - and I doubt they did that (no cite). Insurance law is not so black and white. What will and won’t be covered can change every time a judge or jury makes a decision or when a legislator gets a burr in his saddle blanket or when the company adopts a newer version of their existing policy. Hundreds of thousands of lawyers make a living litigating whether something is covered or not. Yes, there is an obligation of every insurer and agent to not misrepresent their policy but to try to anticipate every nuance of every word in every policy to every consumer is virtually impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/113 "2012-08-28T03:33:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The “100% at fault” standard is not some sort of arcane formula implied into uninsured motorist policies. It’s called contributory negligence, and it’s the basis for apportioning liability in all tort claims in Maryland. The same limitation exists in any MD insurance policy. Well it appears to exist in only a handful of states. Like maybe it’s not a great idea y’know? Sure SEEMS obscure. ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/114 "2012-08-28T12:59:28Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well it appears to exist in only a handful of states. Like maybe it’s not a great idea y’know? Sure SEEMS obscure. Dunno about obscure, but there are certainly valid arguments to be made it is not in the public’s interest. But then, that’s for the people of Maryland, et al. to decide for themselves. States’ Rights and all that. Generally speaking, Progressive’s actions in this case are just a symptom of a larger problem that the deceased’s family should be illuminating. You know, “Hate the game, not the player.” ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/115 "2012-08-28T16:08:30Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > … the universally accepted contributory liability standard… A “universally accepted” standard that was railroaded into law by … you guessed it, the RAILROAD industry, who wanted to avoid claims regarding accidents at railroad crossings. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/116 "2012-08-28T16:14:51Z")
I’m not sure how a common law doctrine gets “railroaded” into law. And has been pointed out, 56 states have changed the rule by statute. Is the railroad industry still so powerful in Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland? But I’m not sure what your larger point is. Every change or non-change in the law is advantageous to _somebody_. Does merely pointing that out in a particular case make a case for corruption? ---
**Author:** ![Inigo\_Montoya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inigo_montoya/32/124_2.png) [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/117 "2012-08-28T17:31:10Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I’m not sure how a common law doctrine gets “railroaded” into law. And has been pointed out, 56 states have changed the rule by statute. Is the railroad industry still so powerful in Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland? Nitpick: you meant 46, I think. And let’s add South Dakota to our list. So 45. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/118 "2012-08-28T17:34:54Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well it appears to exist in only a handful of states. Like maybe it’s not a great idea y’know? Sure SEEMS obscure. I agree it’s a bad idea. That’s why the majority of jurisdictions have done way with it. That doesn’t mean it’s a big secret that Progressive had to disclose 12 times in the policy in red ink in 44-point font though. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/119 "2012-08-28T18:42:56Z")
> [@denquixote](#): > > Well here is the problem. First, I would like to see Progressive’s copy of the deceased’s policy where it says that in Maryland recovery will be denied if the policy holder is at fault IN ANY WAY. Further, if that language is present I would expect to see the deceased’s initials next to it to show that she was fully aware of the nature of the product she was buying. > > Second, the fact that Progressive is denying the claim until liability is proven in court against the actual driver does not give progressive the right to defend that driver. That duty fell on his own insurer, Nationwide. There is no way such a conflict of interest can be tolerated. > > You are right the Maryland legislature is at fault, but of course they are undoubtedly lobbied night and day by insurance companies. Like others have said, contributory negligence was the law of the land for ages, until most states got rid of it in favor of the more plaintiff friendly comparative negligence. Progressive isn’t the only insurance company that will defend an uninsured motorist claim against one of it’s policyholders. I’ve personally seen it happen in Virginia. The Defendant’s own insurer probably decided that for $25,000.00, it wasn’t worth the cost of defending the law suit since any potential savings would be eaten up the legal fees\*. Suppose that the case were different and there was a good deal of evidence that the decedent was at least somewhat at fault. Do you think that Progressive should just pay out or should they investigate the claim and if necessary deny the claim. - This really depends on the circumstances. In a lot of cases, the insurance company has attorneys on staff who defend these cases, but sometimes they farm them out as well. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2012, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772/120 "2012-08-29T12:13:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > The fact that they CAN stick their nose in to change the judgement doesn’t mean it’s the right way to manage these situations. Why not? A party in interest is not trying to “change” the judgment, but simply arguing their own point of view. Is the problem that it is a big, bad, and evil insurance company? What if everyone involved was uninsured, but had sufficient money to pay any verdict. Should the driver who killed the lady have simply paid $100k of his own money if there was evidence that she was partially at fault? Should he not legally or morally pursue his rights in court? I think we would all agree that there would be no problem there with an individual asserting his rights. So why is it different if I contract with a third party to pay me if certain events happen? Why has that third party lost a legal or moral right to protect its own interests in the legal system when it finds evidence that “certain events” did not happen as I described? IOW, when I pay auto insurance liability premiums (along with underinsured motorist protection), in exchange for those premiums, the insurance company owes me two things: 1. To investigate my claim on a good faith basis and pay if the facts suggest I deserve to be paid. 2. Provide an attorney for me to protect me from personal liability. #2 doesn’t come into play here because the deceased lady was not being sued. If Progressive acted in bad faith in investigating the claim, then they can be sued above and beyond the policy limits. However, since there was enough evidence that the judge let this go to a jury instead of ruling on summary judgment, I would think at first blush that they had a decent good faith basis to defend it even though they ended up being wrong. Just because you lose in court doesn’t mean that your argument was frivolous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-progressive-do-something-bad-by-being-adverse-to-its-insured/631772.md?page=7)