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

[wirednuts]

so why is it exactly do we pay for insurance?

just in case something possibly might happen. its a lot like a house mortgage. seems affordable and smart to do, but in reality youre really paying 3x the cost of what youre protecting.

 

[MotionMan]

so why is it exactly do we pay for insurance?

To have coverage for situations like this.

A policy of insurance does not equal a blank check from the insurance company.

MotionMan

 

[Anonemous]

So Progressive is not representing the defendant but they can defend them? /very confusing

 

[JulesMaximus]

so why is it exactly do we pay for insurance?

So that the insurance company can give it to their lobbyists to ensure that legislation is favorable to their business model... duh.

 

[MotionMan]

So Progressive is not representing the defendant but they can defend them? /very confusing

In effect, Progressive was being sued on the under/uninsured motorist coverage by having the family suing the under/uninsured motorist.

That is the means of determining the amount Progressive would be required to pay.

In a sense, Progressive ceased being the decedent's insurer and became the under/uninsured motorist's insurer and, thus, provided a defense to the lawsuit.

MotionMan

 

[Zargon]

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

I read that they offered to settle twice and the family refused both offers

I am not familiar enough with insurance, esp underinsured stuff, to say if they should be held to pay for funeral costs ETC

its my understanding that genrrally thats what life insurnace is for?

 

[darkxshade]

In effect, Progressive was being sued on the under/uninsured motorist coverage by having the family suing the under/uninsured motorist.

That is the means of determining the amount Progressive would be required to pay.

In a sense, Progressive ceased being the decedent's insurer and became the under/uninsured motorist's insurer and, thus, provided a defense to the lawsuit.

MotionMan

Ok but from the OP:

"Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference."

It goes on to say they had to establish negligence which they had to sue to do so in order to get this claim. The OP also states it's clear that the guy ran a red light.

So what I got from it is:

Guy runs red light, hits girl
Guy is underinsured, pays a paltry amount
Girl also had insurance that pays the difference
Insurance company requires establishment of negligence
Family sues to establish this
Insurance company defends the defendant

But if from the top, the guy runs a red light, I don'd know what negligence is if that isn't. To me it is a conflict of interest to defend the guy since they have a stake in this.

 

[crownjules]

Progressive is pretty damn ruthless to first defend against me in court and then take my life.

 

[unokitty]

To me it is a conflict of interest to defend the guy since they have a stake in this.

If you take the perspective that the insurance company's interest is to support their paying client, then you are correct.

However, if you take the perspective that the insurance company's interest is to maximize their profit, then they have no conflict.

After all, isn't the insurance company that screws their clients the most considered the most successful?

Kind of like banks that way...

Just a thought,
Uno

 

[LordNoob]

Let me clarify why this happened. Maryland is a contributory negligence state. What this means is that if the jury finds that the plaintiff (the deceased) was even 1% liable for the accident, she is barred from recovering against the defendant.

For purposes of the UIM coverage, it only kicks in (i.e. Progressive only has to pay out) if the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in an amount greater than the defendant's insurance coverage. Thus, if the jury finds that plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law defendant is not liable to plaintiff and the UIM does not kick in and Progressive does not have to pay out under the UIM provision of plaintiff's policy.

Ultimately I understand that in this case the Defendant's insurance had already paid out the policy limits to Plaintiff's estate ahead of trial and Progressive ultimately lost and had to pay out under the UIM provision.

 

[MotionMan]

Ok but from the OP:

"Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference."

It goes on to say they had to establish negligence which they had to sue to do so in order to get this claim. The OP also states it's clear that the guy ran a red light.

So what I got from it is:

Guy runs red light, hits girl
Guy is underinsured, pays a paltry amount
Girl also had insurance that pays the difference
Insurance company requires establishment of negligence
Family sues to establish this
Insurance company defends the defendant

But if from the top, the guy runs a red light, I don'd know what negligence is if that isn't. To me it is a conflict of interest to defend the guy since they have a stake in this.

I do not believe the thrust of the case was to "establish negligence" (though it was probably part of the discussion). From my experience (17 years as a personal injury litigator), I would bet that the case was almost all about how much more the estate was entitled to over the payment already made by the underinsured motorist's insurer.

MotionMan

EDIT: LordNoob's post above makes this more clear. My experience is in California law. Because Maryland is a contributory negligence state, the case may have actually have been all about establishing negligence.

 

[MotionMan]

Let me clarify why this happened. Maryland is a contributory negligence state. What this means is that if the jury finds that the plaintiff (the deceased) was even 1% liable for the accident, she is barred from recovering against the defendant.

Well, that causes this to make even more sense.

MotionMan

 

[LordNoob]

Well, that causes this to make even more sense.

MotionMan

What most people don't understand about intersection accidents where one party fails to obey a traffic sign/light is that this party is not automatically the only party to blame. Technically speaking, the other party with the green light still has a duty to make sure the intersection is clear before proceeding. The legalese is that a green light is not an unqualified signal to go. What this means is that the person with the green light can still be negligent.

46 states (I believe) have comparative negligence and measure out what percentage of fault the plaintiff has versus the defendant to determine how liability is assessed. Thus, if plaintiff with the green light is found to be 1% negligent in a comparative state, she gets 99% of the damages she is able to prove.

However, in a contributory negligence state (such as Maryland), if plaintiff is found 1% negligent, she gets nothing. Juries hate this so if they truly felt plaintiff was 1% negligent they would most likely just ignore contrib and find for the plaintiff.

If Progressive could show plaintiff was even 1% liable, under contrib defendant is legally not liable to her and Progressive does not have to pay out under the UIM provision.

 

[Farang]

What most people don't understand about intersection accidents where one party fails to obey a traffic sign/light is that this party is not automatically the only party to blame. Technically speaking, the other party with the green light still has a duty to make sure the intersection is clear before proceeding. The legalese is that a green light is not an unqualified signal to go. What this means is that the person with the green light can still be negligent.

46 states (I believe) have comparative negligence and measure out what percentage of fault the plaintiff has versus the defendant to determine how liability is assessed. Thus, if plaintiff with the green light is found to be 1% negligent in a comparative state, she gets 99% of the damages she is able to prove.

However, in a contributory negligence state (such as Maryland), if plaintiff is found 1% negligent, she gets nothing. Juries hate this so if they truly felt plaintiff was 1% negligent they would most likely just ignore contrib and find for the plaintiff.

If Progressive could show plaintiff was even 1% liable, under contrib defendant is legally not liable to her and Progressive does not have to pay out under the UIM provision.

That's horrible.. so if a car going down a residential street at 100mph hits me as I'm crossing, I probably get nothing because I didn't look both ways closely enough

 

[Chiropteran]

If Progressive could show plaintiff was even 1% liable, under contrib defendant is legally not liable to her and Progressive does not have to pay out under the UIM provision.

Doesn't insurance pay out even if you are at fault?

Wouldn't progressive be responsible for paying out damages even if the sister was completely at fault in her own death?

If progressive has to pay when the UIM is 100% at fault, and progressive has to pay when the progressive insured driver is at fault, why wouldn't progressive have to pay if the fault is shared between the two of them?

 

[darkxshade]

Sounds like what we need is insurance for insurance not paying a claim. Then we also need to buy that same insurance from the insurance company not paying the claim so that if either party renegs for any ridiculous reason, you get a payout. This is the world we live in people. Get used to it. :\

 

[LordNoob]

That's horrible.. so if a car going down a residential street at 100mph hits me as I'm crossing, I probably get nothing because I didn't look both ways closely enough

It is possible though unlikely with the extreme of 100 mph. Technically, if you fail in your duty to keep a reasonable lookout or to reasonably make sure the way is clear before proceeding through the intersection (however you want to word it), even if you have a green light, the finder of fact (whether judge or a jury in a jury trial) can find you negligent. Usually it isn't a huge deal in a comparative state because you might lose 5-10% of your damages (and still get 90-95%), but in a contributory negligence state, you can lose the whole case this way.

 

[MotionMan]

Doesn't insurance pay out even if you are at fault?

Wouldn't progressive be responsible for paying out damages even if the sister was completely at fault in her own death?

No and no.

If progressive has to pay when the UIM is 100% at fault, and progressive has to pay when the progressive insured driver is at fault, why wouldn't progressive have to pay if the fault is shared between the two of them?

Not in Maryland (and a few other states).

MotionMan

 

[LordNoob]

Doesn't insurance pay out even if you are at fault?

Wouldn't progressive be responsible for paying out damages even if the sister was completely at fault in her own death?

If progressive has to pay when the UIM is 100% at fault, and progressive has to pay when the progressive insured driver is at fault, why wouldn't progressive have to pay if the fault is shared between the two of them?

My understanding is that UIM only kicks in if the other driver is at fault and has either no coverage or insufficient coverage. So no, you don't get UIM if it is all your fault. Your insurance agent will never tell you this of course.

 

[Pantoot]

Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference.

Do any of the articles explain what "the difference" means? Are these unpaid medical bills?

 

[MotionMan]

Sounds like what we need is insurance for insurance not paying a claim. Then we also need to buy that same insurance from the insurance company not paying the claim so that if either party renegs for any ridiculous reason, you get a payout. This is the world we live in people. Get used to it. :\

Insurance is not a big blanket that protects you for everything anyone, including you, does.

Your policy of insurance is a contract, with terms, limitations and exclusions. The language outlines what is and what is not covered. If you want better coverage, you have to pay more for it. If you want to save money on insurance, then do not be surprised when you find you are under- or un-insured for a certain claim.

Also, contrary to the commercials, insurance companies are not your friends. They are more than happy to take your money and not pay on any of your claims, if they can legally not pay. That being said, most insurance companies are pretty good about paying a fair amount on their valid claims.

MotionMan

 

[MotionMan]

Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference.

Do any of the articles explain what "the difference" means? Are these unpaid medical bills?

Also, what is the basis for this claim that Progressive was required to pay anything?

MotionMan

 

[darkxshade]

Ran into this while browing CNN

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

 

[Chiropteran]

No and no.



Not in Maryland (and a few other states).

MotionMan

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

My understanding is that UIM only kicks in if the other driver is at fault and has either no coverage or insufficient coverage. So no, you don't get UIM if it is all your fault. Your insurance agent will never tell you this of course.

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?

 

[Wreckem]

Ok but from the OP:

"Based on the Progressive policy Katie had purchased, Progressive was required to pay the difference."

It goes on to say they had to establish negligence which they had to sue to do so in order to get this claim. The OP also states it's clear that the guy ran a red light.

So what I got from it is:

Guy runs red light, hits girl
Guy is underinsured, pays a paltry amount
Girl also had insurance that pays the difference
Insurance company requires establishment of negligence
Family sues to establish this
Insurance company defends the defendant

But if from the top, the guy runs a red light, I don'd know what negligence is if that isn't. To me it is a conflict of interest to defend the guy since they have a stake in this.

Uninsured/Under insured coverage only pays the difference up to policy limits. Usually the max is $250k per person/$500k per accident and its usually capped whatever your liability coverage. Progressive likely offered a settlement inisde the policy limit. The family refused. Went to court. Family got judgement against the guy, not the insurance company. Family finally settled for policy limits.