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

[Wreckem]

I don't understand this. In Maryland, insurance doesn't do anything unless an UIM is involved? That makes no sense.




Yes I understand that, but when you have an insurance policy you don't *only* receive UIM coverage. You also receive liability coverage, that is coverage when it is your fault. If it's not the UIM's fault, it is your fault, so wouldn't progressive STILL be responsible for paying it, just as a liability payment instead of UIM?

Liability pays the other guy. Comp/Collision fixes your car. If you are at fault for an accident, the insurance isn't going to pay out for your death. They will cover medical bills/funeral expenses up to limits for medical payments or personal injury protection. Which alot of people don't have/have extremely low limits. But they won't ever pay out for your death(lost wages, future wages, families pain and suffering, etc) if your are at fault.

 

[mvbighead]

Ran into this while browing CNN

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/17/technology/progressive-settlement/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

And this comment is what makes me curious:

As one commenter wrote on Progressive's Facebook page after it announced the settlement deal: "Hey look at that, you agreed to pay off the claim the family was originally entitled to. All it took was losing a trial, a media firestorm, and the impending loss of countless customers."

I understand the arguments for Progressive in this thread, but throughout the legal process, they've looked like villains to the general masses. They haven't done a good job of explaining the reasoning behind not paying the claim, or why they shouldn't be responsible for the claim. They've simply gone about the financial side of things with little thought to the way the public views it.

Granted, I am not saying the public would accept their reasoning for not paying the claim, but they should at least present a valid point rather than just trying to get out of paying it.

 

[Wreckem]

And this comment is what makes me curious:

As one commenter wrote on Progressive's Facebook page after it announced the settlement deal: "Hey look at that, you agreed to pay off the claim the family was originally entitled to. All it took was losing a trial, a media firestorm, and the impending loss of countless customers."

I understand the arguments for Progressive in this thread, but throughout the legal process, they've looked like villains to the general masses. They haven't done a good job of explaining the reasoning behind not paying the claim, or why they shouldn't be responsible for the claim. They've simply gone about the financial side of things with little thought to the way the public views it.

Granted, I am not saying the public would accept their reasoning for not paying the claim, but they should at least present a valid point rather than just trying to get out of paying it.

Well we don't know the full story.

We dont know their offers to settle the case prior to trial.

We dont know the victims policy limits.

We dont know the victims funerals costs or medical bills.

When it comes to figuring out what a persons life is worth, that is where the issue arises.

 

[Wreckem]

....

 

[SS Trooper]

Insurance policies always sound so great when you are buying them, but are nothing close to what was expected when you need them. Reading and understanding your policy is the best way to avoid that headache.

I can thank a few ATOT members for teaching me about insurance