Wow, didn’t realize we were in the pit.
Nope, GD. Where you have to prove your bullshit. There are a lot of people talking out of their asses here and issuing blanket statements that expose their ignorance based on nothing. If you notice the banner at the top, that type of post isn’t taken kindly 'round these parts.
I’m certain you misrepresent the document every assertion bibliography standards of the threads in this message board and I’m also fairly certain that you misunderstand the level of civility expected here.
So you can’t back the bullshit. Got it.
Hey you know I’ve got to go out for awhile, maybe later I’ll do some looking for a source to hold your hand through the concept. Maybe next time you attack someone you should include a note that says you’re incapable of doing google searches yourself for whatever reason.
Knowing that the news report was incorrect on significant points, I would be hard-pressed to find fault with Progressive in this case without knowing the facts.
What I do know and is evidenced by the comments in this thread, many people have a misguided view of what insurance is for and how it works. Insurance companies don’t deny claims willy-nilly. All companies have a system of checks and balances (peer review, supervisor review, internal audits, external audits) to assure they are not improperly handling claims. Are there incompetent adjusters? Of course there are. Are adjusters asked to do more work with less resources like every other industry in the United States? Of course they are and mistakes happen.
As I understand the facts, the first insurer offered their policy limit to the survivor. That company reviewed the facts and believed there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. When the claim for underinsured motorists coverage was presented to Progressive, they reviewed the facts and believed there was at least 1% negligence on the deceased. The determination of liability is an opinion. There is no secret formula for black/white decisions. That’s what judges and juries are for and we all know how accurate they can be.
If Progressive disregarded the testimony of a witness, then they may be remiss in the handling of the claim. If that allegation is proven, then Progressive will be subject to punishment by the state regulatory body, the Insurance Commissioner, who can fine them or go as far as revoking the insurance company’s license to do business in that state.
The state law of contributory negligence (1% at fault is barred from recovery) is not as easy as what was stated upthread “if you’re there, you’re at least 1% at fault”. The fault assessed to each driver has to be causative to the accident itself. For example, if a driver is driving with an expired drivers license, it has no bearing on the actions of the accident and cannot be used as “fault”.
.
I hope I’ve answered your question as well. It’s not a matter of “wanting” to pay or not. Insurance companies are directed by three things, the insurance contract, state law, and case law. What I was trying to say before is that in our investigation, we don’t look for ways to deny a claim. It’s an ethical mindset of all of the insurers that I’ve worked for. We look at the facts and make an educated decision based on all of the evidence we have.
Look, incredible claims, such as yours, require proof. You have now replied three times after being asked for proof but have continued to fail to provide such. I’d say you should go for option B at this point.
Interesting article. So just how did this guy Matt Fisher, whose blog post started this whole controversy, come to the conclusion that Progressive paid to defend his sister’s killer? Was this assertion just rectally derived?
I think he came to that conclusion by being in court and seeing Progressive!s lawyers actively helping the defendant, cross-examining plaintiff witnesses and raising objections on their behalf.
[QUOTE=Matt Fisher]
At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense.
[/QUOTE]
Progressive lied about the fact that they were representing the defendant in court? A CORPORATION lied to avoid public shaming? Say it ain’t so!
Hmmm…here’s the case information. It seems Progressive made a motion to intervene as an interested party, which the plaintiff consented to and was granted. This Maryland lawyer claims that Progressive has a reputation for making crappy settlement offers on these policies, and that “many lawyers won’t even negotiate with them until after filing a lawsuit.”
So I’m thinking that the brother’s account is more accurate that not. Progressive sells these policies in Maryland, then tries to settle the claims with low-ball offers. The woman’s parents sued the other driver to establish that he was 100% at fault, and Progressive intervened in the lawsuit. So Progressive gets to experience this PR nightmare because they…well, they acted like an insurance company. And I get to help my sister-in-law clarify her understanding of what happened.
Telling other posters to STFU is also not taken kindly 'round these parts, so don’t do it again. You can say that kind of stuff in the Pit, but when you’re posting in GD you’ll have to remain just a little bit more civil than that.
For me, it’s simple. Progressive intervened in litigation to which it was not a party (though it did of course have an interest in the outcome) at the expense of its own insured. Bad faith claims are predicated on denial of benefits. This goes far beyond that; Progressive didn’t just deny benefits to its insured, it attempted to prevent her from recovering from the party that was clearly at fault.
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.
It would be nice to get some details about the accident, but as far too often
cyberspace has almost nothing to offer except for a succession of clones.
This was the best I could do in close to 60 minutes; maybe someone else can
do better:
Kaitlynn E. Fisher v Ronald K. Hope III
(from link, emphasis added):
If defence had both witnesses and a reconstruction expert on its side then
what we are dealing with in this case is not a rogue insurance company,
but a rogue jury.
I’ll give a couple:
State Farm settles with 600 named home owners and potentially thousands of others in class action suite: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16774511/ns/business-us_business/t/state-farm-settles-hundreds-katrina-lawsuits/
Alstate settles class action suite for claims during period of 1996 - 2010 http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/1177-allstate-homeowners-insurance-class-action-settlement-
Progressive class action - failure to comply with state requirement that they pay sales tax on replacement vehicles (just filed - http://www.insuranceclassactions.com/Beavers%20v%20Progressive%20complaint.pdf (pdf))
That’s just the insurance company names I can think of off the top of my head.
Subsequent articles from the same source repeat description of reconstruction expert’s testimony,
but then mention only one independent witness, who testified defendant ran the red light.
Um… I do. And most sales people have no idea of what they’re selling. I’ve had to dump two different policies because the agent would not give me a detailed description (from the company) that specified what was meant by certain paragraphs. I have never been able to get a copy of an auto policy before buying the policy and I think that is bogus. Insurance policies are some of the worst worded (for the customer’s sake) contracts that I’ve ever seen. Some companies are filled with loopholes and exceptions that make me wonder how any policy ever gets paid out.
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.” (Emphasis supplied.) Except, that’s the question, i.e., whether the underinsured driver was clearly at fault (100% for contributory negligence purposes). If there was a bona fide dispute on that issue (as colonial’s cite suggests), I have a hard time seeing how Progressive did anything wrong in intervening. Perhaps it could have waited, perhaps not, but I don’t see any ethical, much less legal, objection to its joining issue at this critical juncture. And do let’s bear in mind, as 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.
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.
PBear42, forget the “clearly at fault” part. Progressive “attempted to prevent Fisher’s estate from recovering damages from the party they claim injured them.” This is the behavior I expect from the defendant’s insurance company. This is not the behavior I expect from my insurance company.
There is something untoward about the company I pay to protect me joining up with the person who harmed me in an effort to prevent me from recovering damages.
This would have been my expectation:
I’m harmed by someone
I file suit and get awarded $500k damages
Defendant has $200k in insurance
I get this $200k - Defendant still owes me $300k
I have $100k in underinsured coverage
I get that $100k - Defendant now owes me $200k
My insurance company goes after Defendant in their own suit for their $100k
Defendant owes my insurance $100k
I’ll give a couple:
State Farm settles with 600 named home owners and potentially thousands of others in class action suite: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16774511...rina-lawsuits/
Alstate settles class action suite for claims during period of 1996 - 2010 http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsu...on-settlement-
Progressive class action - failure to comply with state requirement that they pay sales tax on replacement vehicles (just filed - http://www.insuranceclassactions.com…0complaint.pdf (pdf))
That’s just the insurance company names I can think of off the top of my head.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding Mine. I think you missed the point. If I made the claim that every resident of Florida failed to properly use the ballot in the 2000 election and then showed examples of the failed ballots that that would equal every resident?
That’s very odd that an agent wouldn’t give you the standardized ISO forms (they obviously wouldn’t give you a copy of a policy with the dec page as that would mean they were providing coverage without payment). But insurance companies in the US almost all use forms from ISO. They may have specialized coverages and addenda, but I’ve never heard of them not releasing that information. And yes, all policies are going to have exceptions, it’s mitigating the risks and puts onus back on the owner of the policy. Otherwise, after a nuclear holocaust, insurance companies would go backrupt. (Cite ISO form CA 00 05 03 06 B.1. Exclusions 1. We will not pay for “loss” caused by or resulting from any of the following… a. Nuclear Hazard)