What a dick move by Progressive

[MIAdragon]

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.

[mlyonsd]

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

[petegz28]

That's pretty ****ed up

[SAUTO]

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

[mdchiefsfan]

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

[|Zach|]

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.

[Buck]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

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.

[Bump]

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.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Bump

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by petegz28

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.

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.

[KChiefer]

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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by KChiefer

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

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.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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 settle or litigated.

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

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Brock

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

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.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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.