Progressive Insurance

[ai4px]

I'm not really a big fan of posting links to things, but in this case, I think it is relevant. There has been quite a bit of discussion lately here about understanding and checking to make sure you have enough insurance. Many of us have increased our uninsured motorist policies in light of Alex's death. The other policy is underinsured. This is when someone hits you, but has state minimum coverage and your medical bills exceed that amount of money. If you are worried about this happening, you should buy UNDERinsured motorist insurance.

Now that is out of the way. I just found a story online where a woman was hit by a person running a red light and did have underinsured coverage. In the state in which this happened, you must sue the person at fault in the wreck and then present that judgement to your insurance company. The problem in this case is that your insurance company petitioned the court to act as an attorney for the person who hit you. In other words, they are working as the attorney for the person who may put them on the hook for a lot of money. This screams conflict of interest to me, but the court allowed it in May of 2011. I suppose another way of looking at it is that her insurance company does have a dog in that fight... if the defendant lost, they'd have to pay. But that's what they obligated themselves to do when they took her money for underinsured coverage.

In the end, the person who caused the wreck was found at fault and the insurance company says they'll now honor the judgement.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/b-s-...es-legal-team/

I'm with progressive at this moment, and am having second thoughts about renewing my policy with them this winter.

[Jiggles]

I'll believe this story if it makes it to a major news outlet, until then it is gossip

And uninsured/underinsured AFAIK are tied together

[Old Lemon]

if its not on yahoos homepage its fake

[scottg]

I agree with Jiggles, if this is true, it is really disheartening. However, the paper seems like it has an agenda with Progressive. Why mention the CEO's political connections when they have nothing to do with the story itself. I would wait on this one. I'm with Progressive too and if this does turn out to be true, I'd probably look elsewhere as well.

[Stingray1000]

Originally Posted by ai4px

I'm not really a big fan of posting links to things, but in this case, I think it is relevant. There has been quite a bit of discussion lately here about understanding and checking to make sure you have enough insurance. Many of us have increased our uninsured motorist policies in light of Alex's death. The other policy is underinsured. This is when someone hits you, but has state minimum coverage and your medical bills exceed that amount of money. If you are worried about this happening, you should buy UNDERinsured motorist insurance.

Now that is out of the way. I just found a story online where a woman was hit by a person running a red light and did have underinsured coverage. In the state in which this happened, you must sue the person at fault in the wreck and then present that judgement to your insurance company. The problem in this case is that your insurance company petitioned the court to act as an attorney for the person who hit you. In other words, they are working as the attorney for the person who may put them on the hook for a lot of money. This screams conflict of interest to me, but the court allowed it in May of 2011. I suppose another way of looking at it is that her insurance company does have a dog in that fight... if the defendant lost, they'd have to pay. But that's what they obligated themselves to do when they took her money for underinsured coverage.

In the end, the person who caused the wreck was found at fault and the insurance company says they'll now honor the judgement.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/b-s-...es-legal-team/

I'm with progressive at this moment, and am having second thoughts about renewing my policy with them this winter.

And my progressive policy just started this past saturday.... Great

[ai4px]

Ok Jiggles... Is CNN reputable enough for you? http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/tech...source=cnn_bin

[Jiggles]

Welp there is 2 unsubstantiated claims. The dude says progressive defended the defendant and progressive says they didn't. Found the court documents and it says this

Order of Court
It is this 19th day of May, 2011, by the Circuit Court For Baltimore City, hereby ORDERED

1. That Progressive Advance Insurance Company be and is hereby allowed to intervene as a party Defendant.

2. That Progressive Insurance Company is GRANTED all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case.

(Brown,J)

Oh and they won $760,000. Guess we should all up it to a 1 mil policy huh?

[Old Lemon]

[Jiggles]

So I don't know how this stuff works but here is a possible theory I have on this. The court document says that progressive intervened as the defendant, not as the defendants lawyer. Now I believe the law says that you have to sue the defendant before claiming money from the insurance co right? So what I'm thinking happened is that progressive intervenes because they are essentially required to pay on this guys behalf. Let's say I'm sueing the guy over my broken leg and I make all these claims that yea my medical bills were $78,000 but I deserve $500,000 because of blah blah blah. Now if the guy doesn't have a lawyer and the court accepts this now progressive is required to pay me that extra $500,000 when really my claim is only worth an extra $100,000 but because there was no lawyer or anything against my unsubstantiated claims, progressive is now paying out more than they should have.

So, I think this is a very common occurance at least under those state laws. I don't think progressive was actually trying to get out of paying the underinsured, I think they were just trying to be sure they were paying the correct amount.

That makes a whole lot more sense doesn't it? And it would be very easy to get everyone fired up over something like this.

[Panda]

"The case's legal complexities remain murky, but Progressive's carefully worded statement leaves it plenty of wiggle room. Court documents show that Progressive was added to the case last year as a defendant, alongside the at-fault driver, and that it actively participated in fighting against the Fishers' claims."

I feel as if an actual lawyer should chime in and explain if possible instead of just speculating

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by rPanda

"The case's legal complexities remain murky, but Progressive's carefully worded statement leaves it plenty of wiggle room. Court documents show that Progressive was added to the case last year as a defendant, alongside the at-fault driver, and that it actively participated in fighting against the Fishers' claims."

I feel as if an actual lawyer should chime in and explain if possible instead of just speculating

That would help, however I feel my theory satisfies both parties claims. I really don't think this is any reason to get all riled up at progressive. In a case like this, not having an appropriate defense lawyer could be the difference between millions being paid out and a just amount being paid out.

Lawyers on both sides will do underhanded douchey things because doing so makes your case more likely to win/payout more

[lgk]

i'm not sure why progressive would join with nationwide, since the defendant was proven negligent in the first place...

usually the insurance companies settle with the claimant, and sue the defendant and his insurance company in court.

in this case progressive failed to satisfy a claim, so the claimant sued the defendant to collect.

i'm not sure why progressive would file for the opposing side...
if they were trying to protect themselves they would have settled at the beginning.

[Panda]

I'm not a lawyer but if progressive was fighting against the claim to me that says they were trying to get out of paying or limiting the amount the owed me.

While this makes good tactical business sense and I'd be naive not to expect any business to attempt to limit financial exposure it seems untoward at best.

Regardless any company that allows it's myopic short term vision to cloud it's strategic branding position through the transparent display of avarice earns some well deserved public ire.

[ai4px]

Originally Posted by rPanda

I'm not a lawyer but if progressive was fighting against the claim to me that says they were trying to get out of paying or limiting the amount the owed me.

Their exposure was limited to the amount of the policy they sold the dead woman. It seems they are happy to take your money. Mr Jones, you have a policy on paper for 1 million dollars. But it's on paper... You don't really expect us to honor that do you? it is unbelievable they would try to weasel out of paying what they sold.

Regardless of whether they should have been permitted to defend a case which was libelous to them, they've lost in the court of public opinion. Lucky for them, the American public has the attention span on a gnat.

[FrugalNinja250]

I can't think of any reason that I should do business with a company that is willing to work against my interests, especially when I am paying that company to explicitly work for my interests. So I won't.

[dubojr1]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

So I don't know how this stuff works but here is a possible theory I have on this. The court document says that progressive intervened as the defendant, not as the defendants lawyer. Now I believe the law says that you have to sue the defendant before claiming money from the insurance co right? So what I'm thinking happened is that progressive intervenes because they are essentially required to pay on this guys behalf. Let's say I'm sueing the guy over my broken leg and I make all these claims that yea my medical bills were $78,000 but I deserve $500,000 because of blah blah blah. Now if the guy doesn't have a lawyer and the court accepts this now progressive is required to pay me that extra $500,000 when really my claim is only worth an extra $100,000 but because there was no lawyer or anything against my unsubstantiated claims, progressive is now paying out more than they should have.

So, I think this is a very common occurance at least under those state laws. I don't think progressive was actually trying to get out of paying the underinsured, I think they were just trying to be sure they were paying the correct amount.

That makes a whole lot more sense doesn't it? And it would be very easy to get everyone fired up over something like this.