I had never paid much attention to Progressive Insurance, and knew nothing about them except from the ads. Well, it turns out that they’re appropriately named (well, at least the limited degree that it is appropriate to call leftists “progressive”):
According to Mark Progressive offed to pay 1/3 of the claim, (I presume his sister paid 3/3 of the preimums regularly) when that was turned down it went to court and what did Mark see at the table of the fellow who drove the car that killed his sister….
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.
Strangely enough Peter Lewis the Chairman of the Board, biggest stock holder and former CEO has no problem making big payouts to other causes such as $2.5 million to Move On.com and 3 Million to Americans Coming Together (both matched by George Soros) according to Snoops.com
Well, I know where I’m not going to buy my insurance in the future.
I decided that when Progressive went “big brother” with the camera they are pushing you to put in your car to record everything you do. Talk about a lawyer’s dream for wiggling out of paying for anything…
Progressive is the only company I’m aware of that will insure delivery drivers. Does anyone know of an alternative?
This is a hideous example of witch hunt perpetrated by someone with a grasp of “social media”. This time it’s a faceless BigCorp. Next time if could be you.
In what way is Progressive not being “witches”? All the information presented seems to be accurate, and wouldn’t be a problem if not for the narrative that Progressive is the nice insurance company. It might be legal, but there’s nothing “nice” about lawyering up the guy who killed your client….
Huh? Consider, just for a moment, that the sister really was at fault. Should the insurance company just roll over and take the loss to make the brother happy? Is this the “someone is crying, we better set truth and justice aside” argument?
Having had friends who’ve been involved with accidents with underinsured drivers, I am fairly well convinced that if the sister was likely to have been at fault, Trent, the other driver’s insurance would not have paid as quickly as it did.
How could Progressive be so nasty when Flo is so perky?
This sucks. And I’m a gold member since 1997. They were one of the first insurance companies you could shop and pay your bill online. So, I was all aboard for that. And I’ve filed a couple of claims and had a good experience. They even gave me $4500 for an old Honda Civic that my Ex totaled. Kelly Bluebook had it listed for $3200.
Just so I understand the situation here… an insurance company going to court, to prove that they are not required to pay an insurance policy.. is bad?
What if, you know, they’re actually not the bad guy here? What if it really was his sister’s fault and he just can’t accept that? Should we have some form of impartial means to judge these cases where emotional baggage is left at the door?
Or is the complaint that the insurance company is aiding the other driver in his defense? What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t he have a right to a defense? If he screws up his defense the insurance company is going to be on the hook too, why shouldn’t they help him?
I’m shocked at you Rand.
Unless the other driver was also a Progressive customer, the insurance company ought to stay out of the case and let his own insurance company help defend him.
Why would they? Didn’t you read that they already paid out the maximum they were required to? The brother is only suing the other driver to get a court ruling that his sister wasn’t at fault.. with that he can go after Progressive.
If you trust the court to give a fair assessment of who was at fault, why do you care how much assistance the other driver gets or who he gets it from? But the brother has outright said that he doesn’t trust the court and that he sees Progressive’s involvement as an attempt to bankrupt him.
In short: we have more evidence that the brother is acting in bad faith than we do that Progressive is.
…Except that, as I said in the other comment, if the sister was at fault, the other guy’s insurance simply would not have paid that fast.
Progressive’s pretty nasty anyway. A co-worker of mine with excellent credit refinanced his house just before his auto insurance (Progressive) was up for renewal, and Progressive quoted him a 40% rate hike.
BTW, if you go through to the guy’s tumblr and follow his link to the state’s court system web site, you’ll find that, filed yesterday, was this:
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT JUDGMENT IS “GRANTED” IN FAVOR OF JOAN FISHER, PERSONAL REP. ESTATE OF KAITLYNN E. FISHER, DECEASED AND AGAINST ——— AND PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INS. CO IN THE AMT. OF $760,000.00.”
I redacted the defendant’s name because we don’t need it. I’d say that’s that.
Yep, sounds like it’s settled. Doesn’t change the fact that people were jumping to the conclusion that the insurance company must be in the wrong because they’re a big bad corporation.
No, they’re in the wrong because they tried to weasel out on a contract by helping defend a killer (notice, though, that I don’t say “murderer” because there’s no apparent evidence of that.)
BTW again (and again IANAL) I don’t see how you can reconcile 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.”
with Progressive’s statement that “Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant in this case” except that that must’ve been legal parsing along the lines of “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
So glad I have USAA.
(Thank You Dad!)