Progressive Insurance Antics

[bstiff]

Anyone hear about this:

Progressive lawyers defend client's killer in court



In a nut shell, the guys sister was killed by a guy running a red light. His insurance settled but not enough to cover her outstanding debts ect. By her policy Progressive was on the hook for the rest. Progressive refused to pay out until the family sued the other driver in civil court ( even though his insurance company had already paid). At the trial, the lead defense attorney turned out to be a progressive lawyer. Apparently this blew up on the web and twitter the other day and Progressive vehemently denies this claiming he was there to "protect their interests"

[National Kato]

Depending on where you read about it, the facts differ. From HuffPo:

A spokeswoman for the insurance giant wrote in an email Tuesday that Nationwide represented the defendant, and that Progressive provided neither consulting, resources nor money in any way.

Fisher rebutted on Tumblr that a lawyer who said he worked for Progressive played an active role for the opposition. The attorney, he said, gave an opening statement, closing argument and cross-examined witnesses for the defense.

Turns out Fisher was at least partly right. A Progressive rep on Wednesday confirmed to HuffPost that an attorney for Progressive was providing counsel in the trial. However, the rep added, the attorney represented only Progressive, not the defendant. Progressive provided no evidence, he said, but was looking after its interests in the liability aspect of the case.

The upshot of this is that Fisher's family was awarded $760,000.

It's a sad affair, but I don't see Progressive's attorney(s) acting to protect their own liability as anything out of the ordinary.

[Khrymsyn]

Progressive's lawyer protecting their own liability basically means their lawyer was actively defending the driver who was at fault so that Progressive didn't have to shell out their money.

[johnperkins21]

Originally Posted by Khrymsyn

Progressive's lawyer protecting their own liability basically means their lawyer was actively defending the driver who was at fault so that Progressive didn't have to shell out their money.

Which is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. They are more beholden to their shareholders to increase profits than they are to the policyholders.

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by Khrymsyn

Progressive's lawyer protecting their own liability basically means their lawyer was actively defending the driver who was at fault so that Progressive didn't have to shell out their money.

No, Nationwide was defending the driver. Progressive was defending Progressive.

[MagGnome]

Originally Posted by johnperkins21

Which is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. They are more beholden to their shareholders to increase profits than they are to the policyholders.

Which is really fucked up.

[Ox]

I'm not sure what people want to have happen here. The simple legal version of what allegedly happened (here I'm using the plaintiff's version of the facts, because presumably that's the version that is most sympathetic):

Progressive and the decedent made a contract, under which Progressive would pay decedent if (a) a third party negligently injured the decedent and (b) the decedent could not recover full compensation from the third party.

Subsequently, a third party (the other driver) killed the decedent. Rather than suing the third party, decedent's estate settled with the third party for somewhat less than full compensation. Moreover, it is not clear how much of the injury the third party was actually responsible for -- the plaintiff admits that the decedent may have been at least partially at fault in the accident.

So what should Progressive do? The decedent's estate never made any effort to recover full compensation from the third party. Moreover, nobody knows what "full compensation" is, because nobody knows how much of the accident was the decedent's fault. Even on the plaintiff's version of the facts, Progressive has at least two strong arguments for why it should litigate this case.

Having said all that, I want to highlight something here:

Now, I don’t discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way. The only witness who gave a statement on the day said that Katie had the light, etc. The totality of the evidence left some room for argument, but that will be the case any time there’s a catastrophic car accident that doesn’t happen underneath an array of video cameras.

That's an interesting statement from a plaintiff in an ongoing civil suit who is trying to win sympathy from his cause. I get a lot of appellate briefs in which the attorney goes into great detail about evidence that is helpful to his client, then says, "Although other evidence was presented, the case went to the jury primarily on the evidence summarized above." In case it's not obvious to laymen, that is a red flag that there's some really interesting evidence that the lawyer has conveniently omitted. I can't say for certain that there is evidence the decedent was at fault here, but this statement sets off my Ox-sense that the case is a lot more complicated than it appears.

[Khrymsyn]

The biggest thing is that what's Legal, what's Moral, what's Justice, and what's Emotional don't always align.

This is one of those scenarios that seems what's proper legally, and perhaps even proper in pursuit of justice, doesn't feel good emotionally or sit well with people morally. When you pay a company and expect them to have your back, the expectation is not to find them on the other side of the aisle in a court case, unless you're specifically pulling fraud or something.

[biosc1]

Originally Posted by johnperkins21

Which is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. They are more beholden to their shareholders to increase profits than they are to the policyholders.

Originally Posted by MagGnome

Which is really fucked up.

On a slightly different angle, we have a state run (province run) insurance agency here. If they continually paid out maximum benefits for every single case, I couldn't imagine what my insurance would cost me.

It is the job of our insurance company to be beholden to the shareholders (we the people) to, not increase profits, but to maintain a balanced bank account. Sure, it sucks when you feel like you are being screwed, but having dealt with them on a few occasions, black & white issues are easily resolved.

As Ox pointed out, this may not be black & white. Just because someone screams on the Internet doesn't mean they are screaming the truth.

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by Khrymsyn

The biggest thing is that what's Legal, what's Moral, what's Justice, and what's Emotional don't always align.

This is one of those scenarios that seems what's proper legally, and perhaps even proper in pursuit of justice, doesn't feel good emotionally or sit well with people morally. When you pay a company and expect them to have your back, the expectation is not to find them on the other side of the aisle in a court case, unless you're specifically pulling fraud or something.

I don't know. It's like people being in a huff when that lady sued that dude's estate cause he got himself killed rushing to a train. If his leg flies off, hits somebody leaving them with medical bills. If it actually happened to those people there would be no huff. It would be like I can pay for this shit AND I got hit with a fucking leg. Morally people just want others to suck it up and deal until it's happening to them.

In this case, sounds like people hear the story and want Progressive to just sucked it up and deal. Pay money that if she was alive and could talk it out, she probably wouldn't get.

Also, insurance has always been Lobo; Looking out for the main man and that's them. They only have you're back until they don't.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Morally people just want others to suck it up and deal until it's happening to them.

Absolutely. People substitute gut emotional reactions for careful intellectual reflection about justice. I have the same attitude toward them as toward people who embrace anti-intellectualism in politics, medicine, and quantum physics.

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by Ox

Absolutely. People substitute gut emotional reactions for careful intellectual reflection about justice.

Look, just because I eat my dim sum slower than you doesn't mean you have to keep harping on it. My gut said, 'Try one of each.' My intellect said, 'If Ox wants a pork dumpling, he'll take one when the basket is passed around.'

[MagGnome]

I'm still mad that I didn't get to eat one of those bagels.

[Hawkzombie]

What is this I don't even

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by johnperkins21

Which is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders. They are more beholden to their shareholders to increase profits than they are to the policyholders.

All of this "Cheating everyone and actively fucking people in the asshole is okay because SHAREHOLDERS SHAREHOLDERS SHAREHOLDERS" business is going to end up killing capitalism one of these days. If your business cannot manage a profit without cheating it's customers, it's no business at all, it's a con. Pay your debts.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Widgetcraft

If your business cannot manage a profit without cheating it's customers, it's no business at all, it's a con. Pay your debts.

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would realize that Progressive is not cheating anyone, and indeed whatever underhanded dealing might be going on is most likely by the plaintiff. There is a con here, but the sucker is you.

[Widgetcraft]

Originally Posted by Ox

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would realize that Progressive is not cheating anyone, and indeed whatever underhanded dealing might be going on is most likely by the plaintiff. There is a con here, but the sucker is you.

You keep saying that, but I'm not sure where you're getting it from. I've read your argument, and all you seem to say is that maybe the victim has some blame, somehow, even though she had a green light. Is your argument that they didn't sue the the guy who ran into her? It seems like that is what they did, and Progressive sent in a lawyer to run interference. Maybe you can explain it to me, as a layman.

Or should I just trust your Ox-sense?

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Widgetcraft

Is your argument that they didn't sue the the guy who ran into her? It seems like that is what they did, and Progressive sent in a lawyer to run interference. Maybe you can explain it to me, as a layman?

Obviously you not only did not read my explanation, and not only did you not read Kato's post, you didn't even read the actual article. By the terms of the insurance contract, the plaintiff was supposed to sue the other driver and try to recover damages from him. The plaintiff didn't bother to do that, choosing to settle out of court. After deliberately foregoing the opportunity to recover from the guy who actually killed the decedent, the plaintiff then demanded that Progressive pay out the money that the defendant supposedly owed. Progressive rightly pointed out that that's not how it works: you try to get money from the guy who actually harmed you, and only after you milk him dry does Progressive pitch in to cover what's left.

All of that is assuming that the decedent was completely in the right and the other driver was completely at fault. Even under those conditions, you can't just make up a random number, tell Progressive "Somebody hurt me and cost me $[random number]," and expect Progressive to cut you a check. You have to establish how badly you were hurt* and that the actual wrongdoer isn't going to pay. That isn't cheating, that's part and parcel of asking for money from virtually anyone. How many people could come up to you right now and get you to hand over a bunch of cash without giving you a good reason?



* You might think that the extent of the injury is pretty clear, because the decedent is dead. Sure, being dead is an injury that you can recover for. But you can also recover for all your lost wages as a result of not being alive anymore. Your spouse can recover for all the sex he's not going to have with you because you're dead (no, not a joke). You can recover for the pain you suffered in the process of becoming dead. The amount of recoverable injury is still quite debatable even if we all agree she's dead and it's the other guy's fault.

[digitalErich]

You just have to expound or provide links to the "not a joke" part of that post. To a lay-person that's just too weird to not have something interesting behind it.

[Ox]

It's called loss of consortium. As in, "loss of your wife as a consort [of the hide-the-salami variety]."

In case you're wondering, yes, it can be somewhat uncomfortable for everyone involved when we try to prove or disprove loss of consortium. Here's an amusing little vignette.