Ahem.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...1&postcount=13

WTH? Isn't that why you have full coverage insurance? In case you get into an accident that is your fault?

Progressive and their ilk love your 99 scammers to 1 legit claim ratio.

Had 'em forever. They're a little more expensive, but they're a hell of a lot less headache. I've always been treated with the utmost respect by them and have never had to do more than present a receipt for a replacement helmet after my bike wreck or an estimate after I got rear-ended. They know that scraping up nickles isn't worth losing market share so they do their damndest to keep their customers happy.

That said, if millions were on the line (we don't know, but this couldn't have been a small balance), they'd probably put up something of a fight. It's certainly not a pleasant thing to have happen, but it does make some sense from their perspective. I've seen plenty of SF's file notes and ultimately they do some very very detailed vetting before denying a claim. Progressive may not do as much, but if they denied this claim, it probably wasn't just spite - they probably had what they felt was a legitimate reason.

The only distinction between SF and Progressive here may be that SF is a mutual company not a corporation so it answers to its policyholders rather than stockholders. In the end, however, any insurance company (or really any business at all for that matter) is going to try to protect itself and I can't really fault them for it.

I could almost guarantee that Progressive intervened in the action as an interested third party. Their rights were going to be essentially decided and due to the principles of issue/claim preclusion, if they didn't fight it then, they wouldn't be able to fight it at all (res judicata stuff).

This guy's a layperson, not a lawyer. He doesn't realize what is actually going on so he's making shit up.

Progressive didn't defend the 'killer', they entered on behalf of Progressive and defended their rights in the action. I'd be willing to bet that they actually ended up as a party in the case. Ultimately if they didn't they'd have almost certainly lost their right to challenge the underlying liability of the 'killer' in this case and would've had 3 legs kicked out from under their stool on any later litigation to protect their interests.

This is a blogger that doesn't understand the law or what he's looking at.

Progressive did what any responsible business would've done.

Progressive might not have done anything legally wrong... But this is a good example of how and why insurance companies don't give one single **** about people. Insurance companies aren't in the business of helping people manage accidents and property loss. They're in the business of making money, just like everyone else. They'll do things like this and more every time they're legally able to. It shouldn't be a surprise.

Sad and unfortunate all the way around.

Twice Progressive found a way to screw me over years ago and avoid paying for car damage.

once the accident occurred on private property(apartment complex) so it became a 'no fault' claim because apparently full police stuff doesn't happen for non-injury collisions on private property. Both cars were covered by Progressive. :cuss: So they basically got to choose who's fault it was and who got full coverage. Of course they chose the other person's POS car at a fraction of the cost even though she was on the wrong side of the road. Leaving my brand new and much more expensive repair to get screwed.

Other time, apparently they have a rule in their millions of lines of small print that says if there is a crime involved in any capacity they don't have to pay shit for anything. It doesn't matter if the 'crime' was complete bullshit. The Police ended up giving us both tickets so i get screwed. There were witnesses that said the other guy was driving like a maniac but it didn't matter. Ticket of any kind = no pay for anything

I won't ever go back

My $.02 is that, for whatever reason, insurers often do a terrible job of assessing potential liability. I think it's expected that a jury would hammer Progressive for, essentially, representing the driver against their own policyholder. Blame MD law if you want, but it doesn't sound like Progressive was taking that into account in their settlement offers.

If people spent 1% of the energy they use raging against the machine to actually educate themselves on these issues, I don't know what there would be to talk about on here.

It's like an ignorance contest around here.

Several years ago I worked for an insurance company and there was this guy with a large Rage Against The Machine poster in his cube. I always wanted to go up to him and be like 'we are the machine, buddy.' I think they fired him.

I swear to God, every day becomes an exercise in trying to introduce people like Bump and Just Not Gettin' It to adult problems while trying to educate them without showing them pictures of happy kittens hanging from branches.

CP seems to have developed a sub-culture of willful institutional ignorance.

Everyone's right - Progressive should've just sat back and let some broke idiot essentially act as their attorney in litigating what was almost certainly an extremely high-dollar lawsuit. That's exactly how this would've ended up had they done nothing because the law would not have allowed them to re-challenge the tortfeasor's underlying liability in a subsequent action. That's going to be prohibited by the principals of claim preclusion and res judicata.

This isn't even a close call. Progressive absolutely did the responsible thing here and it has absolutely nothing to do with their 'hatred' of people.

And it's settled.

http://cnnmoney.mobi/wk_snarticle?ar...=cnnm_business