What a dick move by Progressive
 

http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29...-to-defend-her

**This did not happen to me or my family, just passing this BS along**

My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court

I’ve been sending out some impertinent tweets about Progressive Insurance lately, but I haven’t explained how they pissed me off. So I will do that here as succinctly as possible. There’s a general understanding that says, “insurance companies— oh they’re awful,” but since Progressive turned their shit hose on my late sister and my parents, I’ve learned some things that really surprised me.

I’ll try to cleave to the facts. On June 19, 2010, my sister was driving in Baltimore when her car was struck by another car and she was killed. The other driver had run a red light and hit my sister as she crossed the intersection on the green light.

Now, I don’t discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way. The only witness who gave a statement on the day said that Katie had the light, etc. The totality of the evidence left some room for argument, but that will be the case any time there’s a catastrophic car accident that doesn’t happen underneath an array of video cameras.

One indication that the case was pretty open-and-shut was that the other guy’s insurance company looked at the situation and settled with my sister’s estate basically immediately. Now, because the other driver was underinsured, that payment didn’t amount to much, but my sister carried a policy with Progressive against the possibility of an accident with an underinsured driver. So Progressive was now on the hook for the difference between the other guy’s insurance and the value of Katie’s policy.

At which point we learned the first surprising thing about Progressive: Carrying Progressive insurance and getting into an accident does not entitle you to the value of your insurance policy. It just pisses off Progressive’s lawyers. Here I address you, Prospective Progressive Insurance Customer: someday when you have your accident, I promise that there will be enough wiggle room for Progressive’s bottomless stack of in-house attorneys to make a court case out of it and to hammer at that court case until you or your surviving loved ones run out of money.

Which is what Progressive decided to do to my family. In hopes that a jury would hang or decide that the accident was her fault, they refused to pay the policy to my sister’s estate.

Out of a sense of honor, and out of a sense of the cost of my sister’s outstanding student loans, my folks opted to try to go after the money through legal channels. At which point they learned another delightful thing. In Maryland, you may not sue an insurance company when they refuse to fork over your money. Instead, what they had to do was sue the guy who killed my sister, establish his negligence in court, and then leverage that decision to force Progressive to pay the policy.

Now my parents don’t harbor much venom for the guy who killed my sister. It was an accident, and kicking that guy around won’t bring Katie back. But kicking that guy around was the only way to get Progressive to pay. So they filed a civil suit against the other driver in hopes that, rather than going to court, Progressive would settle. Progressive did not. Progressive made a series of offers (never higher than 1/3 the amount they owe) and then let it go to a trial.

At the trial, the guy who killed my sister was defended by Progressive’s legal team.

If you are insured by Progressive, and they owe you money, they will defend your killer in court in order to not pay you your policy.

The trial was a real shitshow for my parents, and I did not love it either. As it happens, the jury did find that the other driver was negligent, which, if justice or decency are priorities for Progressive, will result in them finally honoring Katie’s policy. At this point, I hope you’ll forgive me if I wait for it to actually happen.

Don’t buy insurance from Progressive. Not only will you be paying the salaries of people who put my family through the wringer (really a smaller wringer that Progressive attached to the main wringer of my sister’s death), but also when the chips are down, your money will have bought you nothing but a kick in the face.

Today (August 14) Progressive made an announcement about the case. This is my statement in response.

Good God that's a horrible mess. Sorry for your loss and the BS your family is going through.

That's pretty ****ed up

Damn shame. **** progressive
Posted via Mobile Device

Damn man, I'm sorry all around. This is the last thing someone in this situation should have to deal with.

Check out this update he made.

Today, in response to my blog post entitled “My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court,” Progressive released a statement saying that ”Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant” in my sister’s case. I am not a lawyer, but this is what I observed in the courtroom during my sister’s trial:

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.

I wrote about this case on my blog because I felt that, in the wake of my sister’s death, Progressive had sought out ways to meet their strict legal obligation while still disrespecting my sister’s memory and causing my family a world of hurt. Their statement disavowing their role in this case, a case in which their attorney stood before my sister’s jury and argued on behalf of her killer, is simply infuriating.

Man...**** that.

I have progressive. Been wanting to switch anyways. When I find a new company, I'll mention this case as the reason why I'm leaving. I hate these ****ing corporations that do not value us sheeple at all. Sorry for your loss.

State Farm. Been with them for years for both home and Auto and our Rental as well. Never had a problem with them about anything and they have been nothing but nice, and very responsive when we have had to make a claim.

Progressive did nothing wrong here. Their sole duty is to the stock holders.

Has Flo made a comment on this yet?

Yep, pretty much.

The family wants the underinsured motorists coverage to pay out the policy limits, Progressive thinks the accident was at least partially her fault in which case the policy wouldn't pay. The fact that the other driver's insurance threw in the towel is not relevant because if he had just state minimums, its not worth fighting.

This is the sort of issue that should be dispassionately settled or litigated. A grieving, angry family member is in no position at all to provide a reasonable, fair perspective.

Are you guys serious? This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever read.

The policy doesn't pay if she was at fault in any way. Even the guy writing this acknowledges that she may have bee at fault.

Then this dude says that they don't care about money and claims that they are suing the insurance company out of honor. Seriously...those are his words. Then he says that they don't want to kick around the guy they say is to blame because he's been through enough. Pretty interesting that the broke guy who killed your sister but doesn't have any money you can take has been through enough, but fighting the insurance company with deep pockets somehow honors your sister.

Which side wins out? The side that will get them paid, of course. The only way to honor their sister is to sue the guy who has been through enough. (Sorry, dude...honor and all)

Of course Progressive is going to point out the fact that she may have been partially at fault if, in fact, she may have been partially at fault. Why would they just scratch huge checks that they may or may not owe?

Sorry about your sister, but you are a POS looking to cash in on your misfortune.

Progressive wouldn't pay it without arguing about it if there were 10 eyewitnesses and a video.

Progressive did nothing wrong. It's a defendant in MD's UM/UIM process. I know insurance law well, know that MD is second only to CA in the difficulty in insurance issues, and know people are ragIng over nothing in this case.

I hope this is sarcasm I am sensing.

Very sorry to hear about your loss. I will never by Progressive

Legally? Probably not... but yeah they did do a lot wrong, I understand that Insurance companies are there only to make money and not help people.

;)

This isn't that uncommon. Glad it's finally getting press.

I'm sure thats the cool, hip thing to say about the big, bad insurance company, but lawyers are expensive ESPECIALLY if it goes to trial, and if you are 99% sure that the policyholder is entitled to be paid, then its a sunk cost. Pay them and move on. Insurance companies don't like paying for lawyers any more than you do.

Scumbags.

These laws are set up to protect corporate, not the consumer.

ROFL

If you wanna argue whether they should be on the hook then fine. But wouldn't the part where they said they didn't provide counsel to the killer even though his lawyer declared himself a lawyer with "Progressive Advanced Insurance Company" tell you there's serious malfeasance afoot?

What did they do wrong? Enlighten me.

As far as I can tell the only thing they did "wrong" was to not immediately cut a check for a claim they didn't necessarily owe.

I think I'd be contacting the Insurance Regulation Board in your state to see about the legality of your sisters insurer representing the defendent. And sorry for your loss man. A person has to lose a sibling to know how it feels. Life's not fair

Progressive is the worst insurance company I've ever dealt with. I don't really give a shit about what you think is cool and hip. It was my misfortune to deal with them, and thankfully I won't ever have to do it again. From my experience they are chintzy and cheap and they don't make collecting money from them an easy experience even when you've bought every conceivable bell and whistle and it's perfectly clear they're supposed to. **** progressive.

Just a question, if the defendant in this case wins, would he turn around and sue Progressive for damages as the insurance carrier of her car?

insurance and lawyers, yup, sounds like hell. One can say that Progressive didn't do anything wrong, but it would be more difficult to argue that they did anything right as members of human race.

Only you would come in and defend the nobility of of Progressive in a thread like this.

Its not his sister. He reposted some dude's blog without taking out the 1st-person narrative.

Progressive has every right to argue in court that her underinsured motorists coverage shouldn't pay out, if they think it was partially her fault and the other insurance company (which wasn't on the hook for hardly any money at all) isn't interested in doing anything about it.

This

It was pretty clear from the get go this isn't the family of the Chiefs Planet poster. lol

I switched to Geico last month. $185 per month cheaper for the exact same coverage. **** Progressive and Flo

I replied to a dumb post claiming that Progressive would waste money on a trial even with 10 witnesses and video tape. Thats a silly, false statement on its face.

I have no love for Progressive, at all. They are a cut-rate no-frills insurer owned by stockholders, I'm just calling out obvious BS.

Should I have edited the guys story? I did throw up the disclaimer just a few posts in.

:thumb:

This is true, but it doesn't make your previous statement true.

FWIW, my experience with Progressive has been nothing short of incredible, even when they had no interest whatsoever in helping.

The latest - a few months ago someone backed into my wife's truck in a parking lot. The driver gave my wife false information - insurance that showed a current expiration, but in fact hadn't been in business for four years, bad phone number, etc. Well, we only carried liability on the truck. At that point, Progressive could have said, "You only carry liability, it's not our problem." They didn't do that. They went to work for three weeks trying to track down the driver based on vehicle description, an accurate VIN and name... and it worked. Then Progressive sent them a letter and a phone call telling them they're on the hook... long story short, after about two months, I drove to the lady's workplace and picked up a check for $1,600, and it was 100 percent thanks to work Progressive did that they were absolutely not obligated to do.

I'm about to dump Progressive anyway (I need house insurance and am switching my auto to the same new company). This makes me feel good about doing it.

Go with a mutual company, they do not have to worry about paying dividends.

seriously?

Yep. I did misspeak there - they did in fact say, "You only carry liability, so there's really nothing we can do..." But then they said they'd do whatever they could to help us recoup what was owed from the individual that hit her. And they actually did. And it seriously took about six weeks, the entire time Progressive was calling us, emailing us and letting us know what they found out, starting with when they thought they had identified her current insurance carrier... which turned out to be the insurance of the guy that owned the car before the bitch that hit my wife, and due to an filing error at that place still listed the car under his policy.

This

i don't know. if i could figure out it wasn't your sister i would think anyone else could.

i can understand progressive not wanting to pay on the claim. whether it's right or wrong is subject to opinion; but i would think if the defense in the case is coming from progressive then there has to be an issue there.

What you don't see is off screen the sister tried to attack the police officer and the officer had to put her her down.

She is the reason I will never switch to Progressive. I don't care if it saves me $1000/year.

**** insurance companies. Every one of them.

:clap:

Great. They did nothing wrong by the standards of a court of law.

Now let's see how they fare in the court of public opinion.

Other than the last sentence, I agree with every word of this. The guy doesn't get the system, and just wants to get a windfall of money because of his sister's death that he may OR MAY NOT be entitled to.

And, P.S. EVERY insurance company stuck in this uncomfortable position would do the same thing. Progressive isn't doing anything unusual here.

that damn obama.

I deal with insurance stuff with unfortunate frequency. While I truly don't care much for them, it's easy to see why they become such a-holes on some things.

EVERYONE thinks they're a piggy bank to be tapped whenever the least thing goes wrong. Eventually anyone si going to get a paranoid mentality, which isn't paranoia if they're really out to get you, right?

So 100 people come after you on questionable claims, and they fight them all, and we hear the sob story about the legitimate ONE (out of the hundred) where they probably shouldn't have fought. Meanwhile, 99 scam artists...

The moral to this story is the same as the moral to my recent accident story = don't pay for under insured policy.

I was hit by some idiot on sunset blvd. taco'd. Turns out the city of Los Angeles passed legislation that allows a $5k policy. $5k isn't enough to fix a car these days, yet the metropolis that is LA adopted this policy. It cost me an extra $2k to have the vehicle fixed.

I have a Progressive issue also. I used to use them for insurance. I bought full coverage on a truck that I had an accident in. The accident cost several thousand dollars to fix but progressive said they would not pay because it was my fault (I was going around a corner on the highway, hit a patch of ice and rolled my truck in a ditch). They would not pay the claim.

Do attorney expenses effect the Combined Ratio or is it just claim payout?

Yes, they have the right to make a decision. I think it would also be safe to say they were inaccurate in their assumption of negligence. I would also add as someone who worked as an auto claims adjuster (right after I completed my undergraduate degree) that I feel fairly certain that had the other driver been fully covered their "determination" of who was at fault would most likely have been quite different. It can sicken your stomach to sit in on how some of those decisions are made and with such disregard to the customers who are PAYING THEM every month with faith that they will protect them in those times of real loss.

Thanks for once again writing my response for me.

You are leaving out a big part of this story. Full coverage is for when you are at fault. If you weren't at fault, the other party would pay.

Either you didn't have collision, you had a crazy deductible, or you are full of shit.

I had to sue my own insurance about 20 years ago as a result of a catastrophic car accident that left me in the hospital for weeks and completely jacked up my shoulder. The other guy didn't have insurance, it was his fault, and they didn't want to pay the uninsured motorist claim. It took about two years, I finally got them to settle, and I had to pay almost half to a lawyer. Total bs.

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