Progressive Insurance?

[PPC1052]

Fourth line in Post #17.

I don't understand your point. Yeah, it's sad she doesn't have life insurance. But that doesn't turn her undersinsured motorist coverage into life insurance. And her life insurer wouldn't have paid her medical bills if she had merely been rendered a quad. The coverages are distinct, and cover different risks.

Would you be angry at the life insurer because they only pay when she dies?

 

[denverpilot]

The estate and the insurance company had a dispute. They are adversaries. So what? As I said before, it is evident that you simply don't think an insurance company has a right to disagree with a policy holder. I don't agree with you.

You keep missing what I'm saying or you're playing lawyer games with the words.

Please point out where I have ever said I don't think the insurance company can disagree with their client. They can disagree all day. They don't have to make a decision to ACT on their disagreement.

I've said they're required to temper their behavior with morality.

Guess how many times I've known I was 100% irrefutably right, but let someone off, just because they were in a mess?

An insurance company should have the right to dispute a claim, as long as there is a reasonable basis to do so. That they lost isn't that evidence. You need to look at all of the information that was available, as well as what wasn't available to the adjuster, when they made their determination in order to evaluate that factual question. We don't have enough information in this case.

This is such lawyer-speak. That they lost isn't evidence that they were wrong, just that they lost... hahaha... you guys are truly awesome. It's really no wonder you all end up in politics eventually.

Look, they can go appeal it and lose some more customers, I don't care. You keep saying I'm against them having the right to screw over their customers... I'm not.

They can and do have the 100% right to keep doing stupid immoral stuff all the way to their grave as a company. Buh-bye! See ya, Progressive. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[X3 Skier]

All the legal discussion is interesting but mostly irrelevant to those who are non lawyers.

The question is why the decision makers in this case decided it was in the best interest of the billion dollar corporation to assist in fighting the claim of a relatively minor sum with possibility of immense negative publicity win OR lose. If the sum was in the millions, different question.

As the old saying goes, think how this would look in the New York Times when you decide to do something. With the immediacy of the Internet / YouTube, it WILL show up. Nobody should submit to blackmail via the Internet but 75K in a Billion Dollar company with the facts as reported it is an easy choice. Even if there was a slim chance they could save 75K, perception in this case IS reality.

Apparently Nationwide Insurance who insured the "tortfeasor", I think AKA "the other driver" but I am no lawyer, decided to pay given the same set of facts. Whoever was the wizard at Progressive who made the decision to fight the case should have gone to business school not law school. If in fact they did go to Business school, the business school should have their accreditation removed.

BTW, I once defined a lawyer as a person who will spend all the money you allow them to in an attempt to win whatever side of an argument you are on in the case. Nothing wrong with that since its their job but the client decides what side to be on. Progressive was on the wrong side from a business case but the lawyers did what was asked.

Cheers

 

[PPC1052]

You keep missing what I'm saying or you're playing lawyer games with the words.

Please point out where I have ever said I don't think the insurance company can disagree with their client. They can disagree all day. They don't have to make a decision to ACT on their disagreement.

I will agree you have never typed those words. But the words you did type have the exact same meaning. When you say they can disagree, but they can’t act on it, you effectively say the insurance company has no right to dispute a claim. When you say the mere fact that they lost is evidence they were reasonable, you effectively say there is no right to dispute a claim. If you really agree that an insurance company has a right to dispute the claim, then stop talking about how they sat at the opposing table, or they were “the enemy,” as if they have no right to be an adversary. When you stop pointing to the mere fact that they disputed the claim as evidence of wrongdoing, I will stop equating your words to contending the insurance company has no right to defend itself.

This is such lawyer-speak. That they lost isn't evidence that they were wrong, just that they lost... hahaha... you guys are truly awesome. It's really no wonder you all end up in politics eventually.

Call it lawyer speak if you wish. But the law recognizes that there can be good faith disputes. There can be disputes in which one side has no legitimate reason to take a particular position. Even when there is a good faith dispute that goes to trial, one side loses. That doesn’t necessarily mean the other side was unreasonable. Someone threw out the term “bad faith.” In most states, when an insurance company denies a claim in bad faith, there is legal liability. But like it or not, most state laws recognize that merely disputing a claim and losing it isn’t bad faith on the part of the insurance company. You have to show more. That is essentially the distinction I am making that you are calling “lawyer speak.” At this point, no one has attempted to point to the something more. They just keep saying the insurance company disputed the claim and lost. But did the jury find bad faith? Did the court find bad faith? Did the estate even allege bad faith? As far as we know, the answer to all three is, “No.” I highly suspect that if the carrier had been hit for bad faith and assessed extra-contractual damages, the stories would have led off with that tid-bit. But they don’t even mention that at all, do they?

[/QUOTE]

 

[PPC1052]

All the legal discussion is interesting but mostly irrelevant to those who are non lawyers.

The question is why the decision makers in this case decided it was in the best interest of the billion dollar corporation to assist in fighting the claim of a relatively minor sum with possibility of immense negative publicity win OR lose. If the sum was in the millions, different question.

The fact of the matter is that each adjuster has a hundred or so claims on their desk, all with varying levels of factual information available, with various issues they have to resolve to get the claim off their desk, with supervisors, and claim reporting requirements. They have to decide what the likely exposure is based on the available facts and potential damages, and decide what to do with it. There was probably no reason to think that this was any different than any number of claims on their desk. You had a case with a factual dispute about liability, but no way to know for certain how the jury would resolve the claim, short of trial, other than the adjuster's educated guess. They almost certainly made an offer that took into account what they perceived of the factual dispute, and after some back and forth negotiations, the highest offer wasn't accepted. So, they tried the case. Happens every day. There isn't a thing wrong with it, unless the adjuster mangled the evaluation process.

The alternative is that the adjuster pays max limits on every case on their desk, and the company goes bankrupt as policy premiums skyrocket, and the sales people can't sell the product anymore because it costs 10 times what the competitors charge, meanwhile all the scam artists make the insurance company an easy mark and the number of claims go through the roof.

Apparently Nationwide Insurance who insured the "tortfeasor", I think AKA "the other driver" but I am no lawyer, decided to pay given the same set of facts. Whoever was the wizard at Progressive who made the decision to fight the case should have gone to business school not law school. If in fact they did go to Business school, the business school should have their accreditation removed.

Nationwide had a duty to defend their insured from the third party claim. They offered their limits to avoid an excess judgment. It's one thing when an insurance company is playing with their own money, but when they are exposing their insured to the risk of an excess judgment, and they are going to be spending at least 25k in defense costs, it's easier to roll over and pay. Not shockingly, differing positions and exposures result in different decisions.

 

[PPC1052]

All the legal discussion is interesting but mostly irrelevant to those who are non lawyers.

I have no doubt that people ignore the legal issues, but I assure you that it isn't irrelevant. It governs how these issues are resolved. That people aren't up to speed on these issues is what causes them to lash out unreasonably. They don't understand what really happend, so they feel aggrieved.

 

[X3 Skier]

I give up. I tried.

 

[denverpilot]

When you say the mere fact that they lost is evidence they were reasonable, you effectively say there is no right to dispute a claim.

No, I don't. They obviously do have a right to dispute and did.

They also get to live with the consequences of their choice, which is that they offended a very large group of people with their immoral anti-human behavior.

The fact of the matter is that each adjuster has a hundred or so claims on their desk, all with varying levels of factual information available, with various issues they have to resolve to get the claim off their desk, with supervisors, and claim reporting requirements.

Ahh, here comes the... "We have too much work to do to do it right" defense.

Guess they should have charged more and hired enough people to THINK about the work they do, then. Think not only of the money, but also of the public perception.

The alternative is that the adjuster pays max limits on every case on their desk, and the company goes bankrupt as policy premiums skyrocket, and the sales people can't sell the product anymore because it costs 10 times what the competitors charge, meanwhile all the scam artists make the insurance company an easy mark and the number of claims go through the roof.

Hyperbole. We don't know if they offered a settlement, but you completely left it out of your fictitious story where the world has to pay maximums every time something doesn't go to Court, and we all know that's not true at all.

Here's a crazy business idea... Insurance company fires half their retained lawyers and puts in writing that they will offer X amount of dollars in an instant settlement on disputed claims instead, as long as the customer signs away the right to dispute it. I bet a lot of people would sign up for that policy.

Because what people want out of insurance is a damn guarantee. They're hoping beyond hope that nothing like what the policy is meant to cover, happens. The Actuaries know exactly how often it does happen.

Firing the lawyers and writing up a specific payout in any dispute and a hard-fast set of rules where the company will consider a case "disputed" would be kinda easy, and very transparent. Folks might like that better.

Could even quantify all the time lost waiting on the court system. It'd be a win-win, which is what good companies look for in relationships with their customers.

Sure would put a lot of lawyers out of work, though.

I have no doubt that people ignore the legal issues, but I assure you that it isn't irrelevant. It governs how these issues are resolved. That people aren't up to speed on these issues is what causes them to lash out unreasonably. They don't understand what really happend, so they feel aggrieved.

The system is DESIGNED to make sure they don't know what happened, and to make it as far as possible from "Treat others as you would treat yourself and your family" simplicity, because otherwise, lawyers wouldn't get paid.

I give up. I tried.

I agree. They've been trained in an environment built upon furthering the interests of lawyers from day one, how to create and use words as weapons against their fellow humans. It's a deeper and harder indoctrination system than any one week IFR course, it lasts throughout Law School. Whole classes on how to argue dirty, for example.

Then they "practice" using those weapons in a courtroom overseen by someone who's often a former attorney themselves, and against laws written by the over 50% of politicians who were former attorneys.

It's a sick and disgusting mobius loop, and it destroys their ability to relate to anyone not "in the system".

You really can't get through to someone who's been taught to head straight for a Law Library, dig through books for days, and come up with something obscure, and then argue it passionately as an actor on stage in front of a jury, who's done it for years and years... the simplicity of "you screwed your customer". They don't care... the Law books are their life and religion.

Bottom line:

- The lawyers did their jobs. I have no problem with the lawyers other than "doing my job" has always been an excuse for bad behavior throughout human history.

- Progressive screwed their customer. I do have a problem with that.

 

[PPC1052]

Here's a crazy business idea... Insurance company fires half their retained lawyers and puts in writing that they will offer X amount of dollars in an instant settlement on disputed claims instead, as long as the customer signs away the right to dispute it. I bet a lot of people would sign up for that policy.

So now everyone need just buy a policy, and make a claim. Any claim. And they are entitled to recover. Make as many as you want. We pay X always without question! Have you really though this through?

 

[denverpilot]

So now everyone need just buy a policy, and make a claim. Any claim. And they are entitled to recover. Make as many as you want. We pay X always without question! Have you really though this through?

Nope. Just brainstorming. No effort to think it through it at all.

Your responses got me to daydreaming again that there might be a way to replace at least 50% of the insurance lawyers in the country with something simple, so they could go back to doing something productive.

 

[PPC1052]

Hyperbole. We don't know if they offered a settlement,

True, but I bet they did.

but you completely left it out of your fictitious story where the world has to pay maximums every time something doesn't go to Court, and we all know that's not true at all.

Isn't that the logical result of your world view? Dispute a claim with your insured, and you are evil. All claimants will only make limits demands. Why wouldn't they?

 

[denverpilot]

Maybe they would. Lower the limits and jack up the rates for higher limits.

I mean, why not?

AIG was the largest recipient of bailout money in the entire mortgage crisis... the government will pay for all of it.

(I'm just throwing completely absurd things back at you as fast as you throw absurd things at me. Are we done yet?)

 

[PPC1052]

Nope. Just brainstorming. No effort to think it through it at all.

Your responses got me to daydreaming again that there might be a way to replace at least 50% of the insurance lawyers in the country with something simple, so they could go back to doing something productive.

Hmm. Such vitriol from merely suggesting 1) an insurance company has a right to defend a claim when there is a reasonable basis to do so, and 2) we don't have enough evidence in this case to determine reasonableness.

Strange. Oh, well.

 

[PPC1052]

Maybe they would. Lower the limits and jack up the rates for higher limits.

I mean, why not?

AIG was the largest recipient of bailout money in the entire mortgage crisis... the government will pay for all of it.

(I'm just throwing completely absurd things back at you as fast as you throw absurd things at me. Are we done yet?)

I have obviously offended your world view. Sorry, I guess. Carry on.

 

[N801BH]

So now everyone need just buy a policy, and make a claim. Any claim. And they are entitled to recover. Make as many as you want. We pay X always without question! Have you really though this through?

I have.......................

Less lawyers = happier customers...

 

[PPC1052]

I have.......................

Less lawyers = happier customers...

Brilliant. Now just start that company, and wait for the money to roll in as the customers flock to you. You are sure to be wealthy in no time at all.

 

[N801BH]

Brilliant. Now just start that company, and wait for the money to roll in as the customers flock to you. You are sure to be wealthy in no time at all.

You are late to the party counsuler.........

I have been in business for 30+ years.... The money has rolled in and I still hate lawyers......

What America needs is a new line of legal services.... Instead of all those commercials that claim this and that law firm can sue some company and make you rich, we need to have the airwaves filled with a "eat your young" scheme..... Kinda like this....

" Did your legal team throw you under the bus???? Did they lie to you just to pad their bill ???? Did they embezzle from your trust fund???

Call us... We are the prestigious law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe and we specialize in sueing other law firms for Legal Malpractice... We can get your money back and make enough off you to live like the fat pigs we are...

Call 1-800- SCREWUM...

Operators are standing by..

 

[Gary F]

This shows me exactly what I think you are missing in the Progressive Insurance case. Underinsured coverage only pays if the underinsured driver was at fault, and only for damages caused by the underinsured driver up to the limits of the policy. It's not a life insurance policy. If what you want is someone to pay when you die, buy a life insurance policy. The risks are different, and the price structure is therefore different. But if this is the type of coverage that you want, you should pay for it.

I don't understand. Are you telling us the estate had no claim since the policy holder died? Why the reference to life insurance? It seems to me that the if the other driver was negligent then $25,000 would generally be considered inadequate compensation for death. Why would the underinsured coverage not be in effect?

The estate and the insurance company had a dispute. They are adversaries. So what? As I said before, it is evident that you simply don't think an insurance company has a right to disagree with a policy holder. I don't agree with you.

An insurance company should have the right to dispute a claim, as long as there is a reasonable basis to do so. That they lost isn't that evidence. You need to look at all of the information that was available, as well as what wasn't available to the adjuster, when they made their determination in order to evaluate that factual question. We don't have enough information in this case.

Hmm. Such vitriol from merely suggesting 1) an insurance company has a right to defend a claim when there is a reasonable basis to do so, and 2) we don't have enough evidence in this case to determine reasonableness.

Strange. Oh, well.

Thank you for providing some insight into the thought process of an attorney. Initially I did not understand why Progressive took that course of action but if lawyers were involved in the decision to deny the claim it begins to make sense.

How did this action serve the interests of anybody other than the attorneys being paid to litigate this matter? It was obviously against the interests of the policy holder and has clearly hurt the interests of Progressive shareholders. I would like to see the number of policies written and cancelled for the past 6 months compared to the next 6 months. I bet that this incident will do noticeable damage to Progressive's profits through loss of business. Why would an attorney not anticipate the potential bad publicity from this fiasco? Taking an active role against an insured by the insurance company would make no sense to the average person. It would have looked much better if Progressive had remained on the sidelines and let the accident trial run it's course without interference. The only explanation is that the company was eager to expend significant resources to deny benefits to estate of the insured.

You are giving ammunition to those who argue that attorneys are more interested in process than justice or fairness. I have wondered if law school has a tendency to drain common sense and morality from those who attend or if less ethical people are attracted to the profession. Lawyers apparently like a good fight. Those who have read The Art of War by Sun Tzu understand that it is always better to avoid conflict. If attorneys refuse to heed this advice perhaps they should at least learn how to choose their battles more wisely.

 

[PPC1052]

I don't understand. Are you telling us the estate had no claim since the policy holder died? Why the reference to life insurance? It seems to me that the if the other driver was negligent then $25,000 would generally be considered inadequate compensation for death. Why would the underinsured coverage not be in effect?

No. My point is that more than showing death in the accident is required. You have to show that the alleged tortfeasor negligently caused the injury, and the value of the injury. As noted, there is also the issue of contributory negligence. Apparently under the law of Maryland, if the driver was 1% at fault, then she was not entitled to recover from the alleged tortfeasor. Maybe that law is crap (I would agree with that, for what ever that's worth), but that applies to all, even claims involving insurance comapanies. My point was that if you want coverage that is simply triggered upon death, that is a different type of insurance coverage--life insurance.

How did this action serve the interests of anybody other than the attorneys being paid to litigate this matter? It was obviously against the interests of the policy holder and has clearly hurt the interests of Progressive shareholders.

I don't know that it did. But there was no requirement that they act in the interest of the Plaintiff who was suing them beyond have a good faith basis to dispute the claim. I can't argue that this hurt Progressive's public image. But everything posted here suggests that this is the result of public ignorance. Sometimes everyday decisions go viral. Who knows why?

It would have looked much better if Progressive had remained on the sidelines and let the accident trial run it's course without interference. The only explanation is that the company was eager to expend significant resources to deny benefits to estate of the insured.

Perhaps. But if they did, that would have had no opportunity to make sure the issue of liability was adequately presented to the jury. I have a hard time understanding why no one thinks they should hav been allowed to present their position to a jury.

You are giving ammunition to those who argue that attorneys are more interested in process than justice or fairness..

Sorry you feel that way. Do you really think what I said (that an insurance company should have a right to defend itself provided it has a reaonable basis to deny a claim and that there isn't enough evidence here for any of us to evaluate that) is really such an awful thing to say?

 

[PPC1052]

You are late to the party counsuler.........

I have been in business for 30+ years.... The money has rolled in and I still hate lawyers......

Really? You are running an insurance company with a policy that automatically pays X amount on any disputed claim? Call me skeptical.

 

[N801BH]

Really? You are running an insurance company with a policy that automatically pays X amount on any disputed claim? Call me skeptical.

..

Nope... I am in several different lines of work. None is so stupid as to be associated with the insurance industry....

Actually, in hindsite I really didn't start and successfully run any business. Obama told me last week the government did all the work, I was just the lucky sucker who rode the coat tails and milked all the profits for them.

 

[PPC1052]

..

Nope... I am in several different lines of work. None is so stupid as to be associated with the insurance industry....

Okay. My comment was specific to the insurance industry.

 

[X3 Skier]

..

Actually, in hindsite I really didn't start and successfully run any business. Obama told me last week the government did all the work, I was just the lucky sucker who rode the coat tails and milked all the profits for them.

Careful, you might get sued for excess profits.

I am sure there's a lawyer looking for those cases.

Cheers