Progressive: We will defend the person who crash your car and take your life

[andylawcc]

http://gawker.com/5934436/comedian-...ogressive-responds-in-heartless-robot-fashion

In June of 2010, his sister Katie was killed in a car accident. She had a green light and the other driver ran the red — fault was clear. The other driver's insurance company settled with Katie's estate immediately, but because the driver was underinsured, the payment was not much. Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference.

The parents' next move was to sue the other driver — something they did not want to do — just so they could establish his negligence and force Progressive to pay Katie's policy.

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.

 

[Newbian]

Anyone have another link as last I checked gawker is a gossip rag?

Also the site never works for me.

**Nevermind as I found another link**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/comedian-matt-fishers-tum_n_1775191.html

 

[OCGuy]

I am not sure what it matters who defends you, the State should have had an open-and-shut case.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I saw this at the dude's blog. He is a comedian or something.

Anyway, pretty f'ed up.

 

[dawp]

according to Progressive,

But Progressive denied Fisher's accusations to The Huffington Post Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the insurance giant wrote in an email that Nationwide represented the defendant, and that Progressive provided neither consulting, resources nor money in any way.

it was Nationwide.

 

[Gibson486]

And??? That is ANY insurance company....

They will do it to at least reduce the amount they have to pay out...

 

[CPA]

Open and shut or whatever, everyone is allowed and should have representation in court. And since insurance is involved, it only makes sense that the insurance company is going to send lawyers. That doesn't mean they believe they have no liability, that's part of their due process. Not sure why anyone has a problem with this.

 

[Anubis]

And??? That is ANY insurance company....

They will do it to at least reduce the amount they have to pay out...

this

my aunt is currently going through this BS because she was in an accident that was not her fault (someone just turned into her across traffic) both her and the other person have the SAME insurance provider. so they are basically suing themselfs,

 

[dawheat]

according to Progressive,



it was Nationwide.

His reply to that damage control from Progressive - certainly looks like their counsel was directly assisting, even if "lead counsel" was from Nationwide.

http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29432884849/today-in-response-to-my-blog-post-entitled-my

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 all of 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.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Open and shut or whatever, everyone is allowed and should have representation in court. And since insurance is involved, it only makes sense that the insurance company is going to send lawyers. That doesn't mean they believe they have no liability, that's part of their due process. Not sure why anyone has a problem with this.

Exactly. Progressive is representing their interest. If the suit is successful, they're the ones paying out, not the driver.

 

[mvbighead]

Exactly. Progressive is representing their interest. If the suit is successful, they're the ones paying out, not the driver.

Regardless of that, it is sick.

If the deceased was paying for insurance, and paying for insurance to be protected from the under insured, then having any part in a case against their client is despicable.

While I realize it affects their bottom line, putting a family through something like that during a time such as this is about as inconsiderate as one can get. Further, if enough people get wind of this, they could stand to lose a lot of customers.

 

[Chiropteran]

Open and shut or whatever, everyone is allowed and should have representation in court. And since insurance is involved, it only makes sense that the insurance company is going to send lawyers. That doesn't mean they believe they have no liability, that's part of their due process. Not sure why anyone has a problem with this.

Why is this considered acceptable behavior in insurance, but not in any other service field?

Imagine you go to get your oil changed at Jiffy Lube, and the cashier asks what all you want done, and you sign the paperwork, and then after it's all done and you drive away your car's engine fails and shuts down. You find out that when your oil was changed, they only added 10% of the normal required amount of oil, and now your engine is ruined and you need to spend $2000 to get it fixed.

But it's all clear as day written in the contract that they can do that, you just didn't see the fine print. Isn't that okay, since it's Jiffy Lube's interest to save themselves money, and using less oil saves them money?

 

[JTsyo]

Exactly. Progressive is representing their interest. If the suit is successful, they're the ones paying out, not the driver.

That seems wrong though since his sister had a policy with Progressive. Even if they were the ones paying, it seems they should have to argue for their clients, it's clearly a case of conflict of interest. What I don't get is what are they suing for? Liability?

 

[Chiropteran]

That seems wrong though since his sister had a policy with Progressive. Even if they were the ones paying, it seems they should have to argue for their clients, it's clearly a case of conflict of interest. What I don't get is what are they suing for? Liability?

That is a good point.

If the idiot killer guy is somehow found innocent, than the sister is responsible for her own death, wouldn't that STILL be progressives responsibility to cover? Isn't that what insurance is for?


If it's her fault, her insurance pays, progressive.

If it's his fault, her insurance pays based on him being uninsured, progressive.

So what is the point?

 

[Bazake]

 

[ImpulsE69]

Sounds like conflict of interest or is that not an issue with corporations and law these days? :\

 

[Aharami]

as a progressive customer for few yrs now, I find this action reprehensible!

 

[DrPizza]

The original story has been on The Consumerist all week.

Hopefully, I can summarize correctly:
Person at fault's insurance pays out the maximum per his policy, which isn't much. Victim (deceased) had un/under insured coverage with Progressive.

What's not determined is how much Progressive should pay out, or if they should pay out. I mean, the person died; there aren't a hell of a lot of medical expenses, and the other insurance more than covered the cost of the totaled vehicle.

So, family wants Progressive to pay out the maximum value for the un/under-insured driver. The only way to establish that they have to pay out that much is through the court. Of course Progressive is going to protect their own interests.

---

Or, to put it another way, let's say a driver was drunk and ran into your car parked in your driveway. His insurance only covered up to $20k in damages. You have un/under-insured coverage for up to $1 million dollars. Should your insurance company cut you a check for $1M? Now, in the case of a damaged vehicle, you're fairly clearly entitled to the value of your vehicle, plus perhaps, the expense of renting a vehicle until you purchase a new vehicle. Are you entitled to more? In the case referenced in the OP, once medical, vehicle, and funeral expenses are covered, is Progressive on the hook for more? Isn't that what LIFE insurance is for? Hence, the court case. Note: in the court case, the family named Progressive as one of the defendants - of course they had to defend themselves. Technically, they weren't helping the at-fault driver, though they were on the same side of the case.

I don't see this as an issue at all.

 

[MotionMan]

This is only an issue for people who do not understand the law in general and how insurance works in particular.

MotionMan

 

[SphinxnihpS]

The original story has been on The Consumerist all week.

Hopefully, I can summarize correctly:
Person at fault's insurance pays out the maximum per his policy, which isn't much. Victim (deceased) had un/under insured coverage with Progressive.

What's not determined is how much Progressive should pay out, or if they should pay out. I mean, the person died; there aren't a hell of a lot of medical expenses, and the other insurance more than covered the cost of the totaled vehicle.

So, family wants Progressive to pay out the maximum value for the un/under-insured driver. The only way to establish that they have to pay out that much is through the court. Of course Progressive is going to protect their own interests.

---

Or, to put it another way, let's say a driver was drunk and ran into your car parked in your driveway. His insurance only covered up to $20k in damages. You have un/under-insured coverage for up to $1 million dollars. Should your insurance company cut you a check for $1M? Now, in the case of a damaged vehicle, you're fairly clearly entitled to the value of your vehicle, plus perhaps, the expense of renting a vehicle until you purchase a new vehicle. Are you entitled to more? In the case referenced in the OP, once medical, vehicle, and funeral expenses are covered, is Progressive on the hook for more? Isn't that what LIFE insurance is for? Hence, the court case. Note: in the court case, the family named Progressive as one of the defendants - of course they had to defend themselves. Technically, they weren't helping the at-fault driver, though they were on the same side of the case.

I don't see this as an issue at all.

Yes.

This is a simple how much is a dead person worth case and dozens of them happen every day. No one is defending any killer. Someone unfamiliar with insurance and law is seeing things with fresh eyes and tinted glasses.

 

[CPA]

Why is this considered acceptable behavior in insurance, but not in any other service field?

Imagine you go to get your oil changed at Jiffy Lube, and the cashier asks what all you want done, and you sign the paperwork, and then after it's all done and you drive away your car's engine fails and shuts down. You find out that when your oil was changed, they only added 10% of the normal required amount of oil, and now your engine is ruined and you need to spend $2000 to get it fixed.

But it's all clear as day written in the contract that they can do that, you just didn't see the fine print. Isn't that okay, since it's Jiffy Lube's interest to save themselves money, and using less oil saves them money?

It's clear as day that Jiffy Lube can only replace your oil with 10% of it's volume? Stretch of an analogy. But, let's play this game. If you sign a contract and didn't read the fine print, who's fault is that?

BTW, I'm not saying Progressive is right or wrong, what I'm arguing is that Progressive has the right and would be stupid not to exercise that right of properly defending themselves.

 

[sactoking]

Without going into detail I will say that, as an insurance regulator, this is not out of the ordinary nor considered immoral or unethical.

 

[darkxshade]

so why is it exactly do we pay for insurance?

 

[Corporate Thug]

I am not sure what it matters who defends you, the State should have had an open-and-shut case.

it's a civil case...the state doesn't appear to involved at all. In any event, I don't see why the carrier should not be able to defend.

 

[MontyAC]

I wonder if Progressive tried to settle but the family refused, thus court time.