Quote:
Originally Posted by KChiefer
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?
|
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.