If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tumblr)   Your insurance company's lawyers defend your killer in court. Now that's Progressive   (mattfisher.tumblr.com) divider line 196
    More: Sick, killer, Progressive Insurance  
•       •       •

15134 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Aug 2012 at 7:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-13 03:36:55 PM
jesus, that's just farking wrong.

i really hope this story flies around the world in a hurry and becomes a PR nightmare for progressive.
 
2012-08-13 03:42:50 PM
Wow, that's...amazingly evil.
 
2012-08-13 04:19:47 PM

dj_bigbird: Wow, that's...amazingly evil.


A true notch above run-of-the-mill insurance company evil. Way to go Progressive.
 
2012-08-13 04:21:42 PM
I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.
 
2012-08-13 04:23:22 PM
In Maryland, you may not sue an insurance company when they refuse to fork over your money.

Wait, what? Who was the genius who thought that was a good farking idea?
 
2012-08-13 04:31:08 PM
(reposting from redlit thread)

I call bullshiat.

I feel bad for her, but this isn't as bad as what she's saying it is.

When I got hit by a car, I did not have health care (it was before Romneycare) and the guy who hit me only had $20k worth of personal injury coverage.

My medical bills were much higher than $20k, before we got to anything like missed work, pain and suffering etc etc.

Because I technically still lived with my parents, I sued my mother's home owner's insurance to cover the rest of my bills, and that is a totally normal thing. Her insurance company needed to prove that a) I really lived there and b) I really needed the money. This was done by providing tax returns and voter registration, as well as medical testimony.

So to recap:

A drunk driver hit me, and I sued my mother.
 
2012-08-13 04:31:58 PM
Let that be a lesson: do NOT go with the Flo
 
2012-08-13 04:32:17 PM
I'll reserve judgment until there's an actual article, not some person's shiatty undocumented tumblr.
 
2012-08-13 04:34:18 PM

exick: Wait, what? Who was the genius who thought that was a good farking idea?


The negligent driver is a necessary party. You sue him and the UIM carrier as third party. That's the way it works in many states. It's called underinsured motorist insurance for a reason: you have to establish the driver's liability, the amount of damages, and then that he doesn't have coverage sufficient to pay those damages.
 
2012-08-13 04:37:08 PM
Progressive makes pretty sh*tty robots. I know that much.
 
2012-08-13 04:40:05 PM

Shostie: Progressive makes pretty sh*tty robots. I know that much.


Flobot is Tweaky in drag
 
2012-08-13 04:43:07 PM
i332.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-13 04:46:17 PM

Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.


You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
2012-08-13 04:50:01 PM
That read like one of the shiattier Consumerist rants. "My sister died under circumstances that aren't completely clear, and her insurance company didn't just give me money! ASSHOLES!"
 
2012-08-13 04:52:55 PM
It boils down to this: auto insurance isn't a contract for liquidated payments. It's not life insurance. If someone injures you, his liability insurance and/or your un(der)insured motorist insurance are on the hook for whatever you can convince someone else that you should get, whether you're convincing a judge/jury in litigation or an attorney/adjuster in negotiations. Obviously, Progressive didn't think that the case was worth as much as the girl's estate did. Maybe there were contributory negligence issues that would have sunk the entire claim. Maybe the economic damages weren't provable. For whatever reason, they weren't going to pay what the estate was demanding, and so they defended themselves.
 
2012-08-13 05:03:27 PM

kronicfeld: It boils down to this: auto insurance isn't a contract for liquidated payments. It's not life insurance. If someone injures you, his liability insurance and/or your un(der)insured motorist insurance are on the hook for whatever you can convince someone else that you should get, whether you're convincing a judge/jury in litigation or an attorney/adjuster in negotiations. Obviously, Progressive didn't think that the case was worth as much as the girl's estate did. Maybe there were contributory negligence issues that would have sunk the entire claim. Maybe the economic damages weren't provable. For whatever reason, they weren't going to pay what the estate was demanding, and so they defended themselves.


Wasn't the estate demanding what was promised in the contract written by Progressive and signed by both parties?
 
2012-08-13 05:05:07 PM

exick: In Maryland, you may not sue an insurance company when they refuse to fork over your money.

Wait, what? Who was the genius who thought that was a good farking idea?


I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than that. This guy sounds like his problem was that a covered liability had not been established. If there is no covered liability, and your insurance company doesn't send you any money, what could you possibly sue them for?
I'm also pretty sure that once a covered liability is established, if Progressive sent a card saying "fark you" instead of a check, then you could sue them. Even in Maryland.
 
2012-08-13 05:05:39 PM
Went to their site and clicked the "Contact" button.
Used one of my throw away email addresses. and sent this


"I was considering switching from my State Farm policy that I have had on all three of my vehicles for eleven years...Until I saw this.
http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29338478278/my-sister-paid-progress i ve-insurance-to-defend-her

You people should be ashamed of yourselves!
Feel free to use my comments in your advertising.
State Farm will keep my business and they could possibly use this information in their advertising."
 
2012-08-13 05:07:16 PM
BTW, I left Fark out of the loop so Drew didn't have the extra hassle.
 
2012-08-13 05:08:55 PM

Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.


It's a pity you stopped reading or you might have learned that the other driver WAS found negligent. It kinda makes you look stupid.
 
2012-08-13 05:14:54 PM

ElizaDoolittle: Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.

It's a pity you stopped reading or you might have learned that the other driver WAS found negligent. It kinda makes you look stupid.


Found by whom? The other driver's liability carrier paid policy limits, probably getting a release of its insured in the process (insurers cannot simply cut-and-run like that), which would make sense with a low limit policy and a fatality in an accident. Even a finding of 10% fault in a comparative negligence situation could result in an excess judgment. The fact that the other driver's insurer paid its policy limits is not a finding of fault.
 
2012-08-13 05:18:14 PM
I did insurance defense litigation for catastrophic trucking and auto accidents for several years, and now I have been an insurance claims attorney for several more years and I can't even begin to say how eff'ed up this is.

I hope the fall-out from this is epic.
 
2012-08-13 05:21:58 PM

Nabb1: ElizaDoolittle: Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.

It's a pity you stopped reading or you might have learned that the other driver WAS found negligent. It kinda makes you look stupid.

Found by whom? The other driver's liability carrier paid policy limits, probably getting a release of its insured in the process (insurers cannot simply cut-and-run like that), which would make sense with a low limit policy and a fatality in an accident. Even a finding of 10% fault in a comparative negligence situation could result in an excess judgment. The fact that the other driver's insurer paid its policy limits is not a finding of fault.


You obviously didn't read the whole article. The premise was that the person who was in the accident with the decedent had to be sued by the decedent's family to prove negligence so that the decedent's auto policy would pay its limits. The decedent's auto-policy actually REPRESENTED the tortfeasor during the litigation, so as not to pay out.

Which, now that I think about it, doesn't make ANY sense. An insurance company is not in privity with the tortfeasor unless they have an insurance agreement, there is absolutely no legal basis requiring the representation.

Further, the article states that they had to sue the tortfeasor, whereas that isn't necessarily true. They could have sued the insurance company via dec action to determine if the policy limits were rightfully owed.

/Unless there are crazy jurisdictional rules I'm not aware of....
//All I know is, I would sue the shiat out of them for bad-faith.
 
2012-08-13 05:23:45 PM
Additionally, if the other insurance company settled for policy limits, they most likely DID get a release which would prohibit another suit against the tortfeasor.

The more and more I think about it, this sounds like a dec action where the insurance company was trying to limit the recovery of benefits due to an exclusion or fault.
 
2012-08-13 05:26:50 PM

Nabb1: ElizaDoolittle: Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.

It's a pity you stopped reading or you might have learned that the other driver WAS found negligent. It kinda makes you look stupid.

Found by whom? The other driver's liability carrier paid policy limits, probably getting a release of its insured in the process (insurers cannot simply cut-and-run like that), which would make sense with a low limit policy and a fatality in an accident. Even a finding of 10% fault in a comparative negligence situation could result in an excess judgment. The fact that the other driver's insurer paid its policy limits is not a finding of fault.


From the article:

The trial was a real shiatshow for my parents, and I did not love it either. As it happens, the jury did find that the other driver was negligent, which, if justice or decency were priorities for Progressive, will result in them finally honoring Katie's policy. At this point, I hope you'll forgive me if I wait for it to actually happen.
 
2012-08-13 05:36:20 PM

Ryan2065: Nabb1: ElizaDoolittle: Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.

It's a pity you stopped reading or you might have learned that the other driver WAS found negligent. It kinda makes you look stupid.

Found by whom? The other driver's liability carrier paid policy limits, probably getting a release of its insured in the process (insurers cannot simply cut-and-run like that), which would make sense with a low limit policy and a fatality in an accident. Even a finding of 10% fault in a comparative negligence situation could result in an excess judgment. The fact that the other driver's insurer paid its policy limits is not a finding of fault.

From the article:

The trial was a real shiatshow for my parents, and I did not love it either. As it happens, the jury did find that the other driver was negligent, which, if justice or decency were priorities for Progressive, will result in them finally honoring Katie's policy. At this point, I hope you'll forgive me if I wait for it to actually happen.


Oh. Never mind.
 
2012-08-13 06:02:54 PM

RichieLaw: Which, now that I think about it, doesn't make ANY sense. An insurance company is not in privity with the tortfeasor unless they have an insurance agreement, there is absolutely no legal basis requiring the representation.

Further, the article states that they had to sue the tortfeasor, whereas that isn't necessarily true. They could have sued the insurance company via dec action to determine if the policy limits were rightfully owed.


Reasons why I am skeptical of a lay description of a piece of litigation on some dude's blog.
 
2012-08-13 06:54:38 PM

RichieLaw: tortfeasor


This is a pretty awesome word to say.

Tortfeasor tortfeasor tortfeasor....
 
2012-08-13 06:55:16 PM
I entirely buy this. Why? Because I've seen what insurance companies are all about within the past few years.

Traveler's Insurance apparently thinks nobody will notice when you send a man paperwork for him to sign regarding his health benefits (a few days after he dies). And because that paperwork was not signed, apparently they believe they don't have to pay medical or death benefits for said individual.
 
2012-08-13 06:58:49 PM
Mind you, it was nearly a full year of similar bullshiat from that insurance company. They eventually refused to cover his pain medication. PAIN MEDICATION.

He died a week after that.
 
2012-08-13 07:24:12 PM
Jesus christ, that is really farked up.

I hope that this becomes viral forcing the PR department to intervene and take care of this
 
2012-08-13 07:33:59 PM

rumpelstiltskin: what could you possibly sue them for?


Breach of contract.
 
2012-08-13 07:51:27 PM

FlashHarry: jesus, that's just farking wrong.

i really hope this story flies around the world in a hurry and becomes a PR nightmare for progressive.


This isn't unique to Progressive. All insurance companies are like this.

All of them.
 
2012-08-13 07:52:05 PM
images.thecarconnection.com

snapshot. from progressive
 
2012-08-13 07:52:28 PM
when the chips are down, your money will have bought you nothing but a kick in the face.

You didn't know this,and yet you had an insurance policy?

Sounds like this family never had any claims before.
 
2012-08-13 08:05:50 PM
i wonder if warren buffet's attorneys at progressive pay more in taxes than he does...
 
2012-08-13 08:08:27 PM

RichieLaw: Additionally, if the other insurance company settled for policy limits, they most likely DID get a release which would prohibit another suit against the tortfeasor.

The more and more I think about it, this sounds like a dec action where the insurance company was trying to limit the recovery of benefits due to an exclusion or fault.


It was most likely just a underinsured motorist count. With a dec action, Progressive would not defend the other driver. In a dec action, the insurance company is the plaintiff. With a UIM lawsuit it would be the estate vs Progressive, but liability would still need to be proved, since the Progressive policy will have language to that effect. These cases are always about damages. A UIM claim is basically a contract case, so fault honestly doesn't have that much to do with it. The trial argument is 'a deal is a deal, and they paid for this coverage.'

For what its worth, State Farm and Allstate are both worse then Progressive.
 
2012-08-13 08:09:26 PM

ideamaster: i wonder if warren buffet's attorneys at progressive pay more in taxes than he does...


Progressive is not GEICO.
 
2012-08-13 08:12:55 PM
i've never met someone who had a good tale to tell regarding insurance. not once in my life. regardless of business, personal, home, auto - you name the policy, it's angry stories and pissed-off customers.

long ago i was with "the good hands people" or some crap like that when i was young and had my first automobile. even though my payments were always in on time their computers would kick out threatening hate mail at least once a month, letting me know they would rein hell down upon me should i ever fail to send in a payment. that was my introduction to the adult world of insurance payments.
 
2012-08-13 08:12:57 PM
Avoid Geico too. They go by the postmark every single time I send it for nine months, then the one time I have a fender bender (mind you, barely a scratch, we both opened our doors at the same time and biatch freaked out and wanted my info) they said there was a lapse in coverage- when I'd sent it three days before and they should have already received it. It was the day the payment was due.

This resulted in the suspension of my license for a year even though I proved I paid it three days before. Screw you, California DMV. And screw you, Geico.
 
2012-08-13 08:13:00 PM

Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"

"I'll try to cleave to the facts. " was the second sign this was just a bunch of bullshiat.

"Now, I don't discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way." did get me to stop reading.

His sister is probably the one who ran the red light. Good, now she's dead. She won't threaten anyone else.


Aren't you the proud drunk driver?
 
2012-08-13 08:13:44 PM
DNRTFA, but if my insurance company paid someone to defend my killer, I would be pissed. Pissed I tell ya.
 
2012-08-13 08:14:46 PM

patentguy: ideamaster: i wonder if warren buffet's attorneys at progressive pay more in taxes than he does...

Progressive is not GEICO.



----
My apologies. I knew I picked a bad time to quit sniffing glue. (only my first beer of the evening).
 
2012-08-13 08:17:03 PM

Raging Thespian: [i332.photobucket.com image 558x331]


Flo needs an icepick jammed into the base of her skull.
 
2012-08-13 08:17:29 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: RichieLaw: Additionally, if the other insurance company settled for policy limits, they most likely DID get a release which would prohibit another suit against the tortfeasor.

The more and more I think about it, this sounds like a dec action where the insurance company was trying to limit the recovery of benefits due to an exclusion or fault.

It was most likely just a underinsured motorist count. With a dec action, Progressive would not defend the other driver. In a dec action, the insurance company is the plaintiff. With a UIM lawsuit it would be the estate vs Progressive, but liability would still need to be proved, since the Progressive policy will have language to that effect. These cases are always about damages. A UIM claim is basically a contract case, so fault honestly doesn't have that much to do with it. The trial argument is 'a deal is a deal, and they paid for this coverage.'

For what its worth, State Farm and Allstate are both worse then Progressive.


What about farmers?

/we. Are. Farmers...
 
2012-08-13 08:18:18 PM

Do the needful: DNRTFA, but if my insurance company paid someone to defend my killer, I would be pissed. Pissed I tell ya.


I'd probably haunt them.
 
2012-08-13 08:20:52 PM
I'm not saying this family is deserving of this level of hell, but they do seem naive. Insurance is a necessary evil, with a heavy emphasis on evil. Never trust them, they are not there to help you. They are there to make money for the shareholders by taking premium dollars, then delaying and/or denying claims until all possible interest has been earned for the company.
 
2012-08-13 08:21:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: FlashHarry: jesus, that's just farking wrong.

i really hope this story flies around the world in a hurry and becomes a PR nightmare for progressive.

This isn't unique to Progressive. All insurance companies are like this.

All of them.


When it is time to file a claim, your insurance company is not your friend. They will look for any way to not pay a claim. Insurance companies hire lawyers for one reason - to look after their interests.
 
2012-08-13 08:23:40 PM

Happy Hours: I should have stopped reading at "important tweets"


Hey Happy Hours, I'm guessing you weren't even reading before "important tweets." Because the word he used is impertinent.

My tag for you now says "knee-JERK".
 
2012-08-13 08:23:53 PM

Kit Fister: ignatius_crumbcake: RichieLaw: Additionally, if the other insurance company settled for policy limits, they most likely DID get a release which would prohibit another suit against the tortfeasor.

The more and more I think about it, this sounds like a dec action where the insurance company was trying to limit the recovery of benefits due to an exclusion or fault.

It was most likely just a underinsured motorist count. With a dec action, Progressive would not defend the other driver. In a dec action, the insurance company is the plaintiff. With a UIM lawsuit it would be the estate vs Progressive, but liability would still need to be proved, since the Progressive policy will have language to that effect. These cases are always about damages. A UIM claim is basically a contract case, so fault honestly doesn't have that much to do with it. The trial argument is 'a deal is a deal, and they paid for this coverage.'

For what its worth, State Farm and Allstate are both worse then Progressive.

What about farmers?

/we. Are. Farmers...


Farmers is bad. I have Amica. Citizens and AAA are ok.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report