The Boating Forum - Lest anyone thought their Insurance companies were working for them

Progressive has been posted on THT more often than other companies I think. Some bad , some good, and there has been some interesting posts on other insurance companies too. This story will certainly hit home with some. I know it's not boating related but I thought everyone should really re-evaluate where they spend their hard earned dollars so their are not in a situation like this. I'm sure they could bring these practices to the boating industry very easily. Another point with this story... with hard times seems a lot more people are driving around un-insured and some states don't really nail people hard for this! What gives?

http://gma.yahoo.com/family-woman-killed-crash-accuses-insurer-calling-witness-155938855--abc-news-topstories.html

some info is missing... the woman who was killed and her insurer are on the same team (they both want the other guys' insurer to pay). if progressive goes against their insured, they are going against themselves... and putting themselves on the hook for liability.

it does not make any sense to me.

it does not make any sense to me.

x2 -- Either the reporter that wrote that article does not understand one thing about insurance, or is a poor writer cause it makes no sense.

Long story short -- Woman (W) gets killed by a man (M) who ran a red light. W has Progressive (P) insurance, man has X. X pays out max but that amount is not enough so W's family files a claim with P for under insured coverage.

P either denies or disagrees with the claim amount. W's family sues M to establish liability so P will have to pay up. P retains counsel for M to protect their interests.

I believe that is the gist of it. Not really see how this is a story. If I was suing someone to help a claim against a third party, i would not be the least bit surprised if the third party helped the person I was suing. If the family loses the lawsuit against M, P may not get sued and if they are, their case looks better.

The way I heard it on the news earlier was that the crash was in MD, and insurance does not pay until the court decides who is at fault. The driver of the car that ran the stop light and killed the woman has nationwide coverage, the woman had Progressive. In court Progressive sent one of their lawyers to support the driver with Nationwide to prove it was not his fault so Progressive did not have to pay for the claim of the woman who died.

Gentlemen...

Progressive was handling an Uninsured Motorist claim that was being pursued by the estate of the Progressive policy holder (lady killed in the accident). A carrier handling an Uninsured Motorist claim assumes all the applicable defenses and liability arguments of the at fault driver. Basically you have bought insurance to cover the acts of parties that may harm you, but have no insurance of their own.

Clearly the family representative making this statement to the press is ignorant as to the law and rights of Progressive as the UM carrier to assert a defense in the case as to the accused at fault driver. This same scenario goes on everyday with any carrier that writes UM coverage.

There is nothing that Progressive has done here that is "bad faith" or somehow evil!

whitefether got it Not sure what story the others read ....because Progressive was the dead woman's ins co. not the person they were helping (Nationwide) My point of sharing this story is to make sure you and your toys are insured properly, also question your agents (written of course) don't just take a verbal "yes your covered" answer.

Again......Progresive in defending the UM claim has the right to assist in the at fault parties defense as they are on the hook for an adverse verdict against this At fault driver. The only two that don't get it are the op and whitefether. Progressive is doing what every UM carrier does in the same situation. If you do not understand UM auto coverage look it up and quit commenting.

x2 -- Either the reporter that wrote that article does not understand one thing about insurance, or is a poor writer cause it makes no sense.

With the state of the media today, likely both......

The point of the article is that Progressive, which based upon the average number of complaints filed against it is the worst of the large insurers in customer service, required its own insured to spend a whole bunch of money on legal fees and litigation expenses for what appears to be an open and shut UIM claim that exceeded Progressive's $100,000 policy - as shown by the jury's $760,000 award.
No other insurer, with the facts presented (i.e., offender went through a red light) would not have just tendered its $75,000 after nationwide, the wrongdoer's insurer paid its full policy limit of $25,000. Because UIM is a hybrid, requiring proof of the non-insured's fault, but also subject to bad faith laws vis-a-vis the policyholder, it is possible that Progressive may have to pay a bad faith claim amounting to the full $760,000 award.

The point of the article is that Progressive, which based upon the average number of complaints filed against it is the worst of the large insurers in customer service, required its own insured to spend a whole bunch of money on legal fees and litigation expenses for what appears to be an open and shut UIM claim that exceeded Progressive's $100,000 policy - as shown by the jury's $760,000 award.
No other insurer, with the facts presented (i.e., offender went through a red light) would not have just tendered its $75,000 after nationwide, the wrongdoer's insurer paid its full policy limit of $25,000. Because UIM is a hybrid, requiring proof of the non-insured's fault, but also subject to bad faith laws vis-a-vis the policyholder, it is possible that Progressive may have to pay a bad faith claim amounting to the full $760,000 award.

Possibly true...but again it is within Progressives rights to defend the liability issues. It is obvious with a deceased policy holder Progressive viewed liability for the accident a lot differently than the jurors and the estate's counsel did. Otherwise they would have never tried a death case with only a $100k policy at risk. There has to be a lot more facts out there that are not being brought out in this article. Progressive is not ran by morons and there was a reason that this case had to be tried.

Also consider the possibility that the at fault party may have had some personal assets that were only reachable with a verdict and the estates attorneys were out to get every penny possible. Therefore they may have refused a policy limits tender offer by Progressive and decided to try the case to verdict and then hit the UM policy and try to collect the excess verdict from the at fault party through a lien and perfect a judgement that would lead to seizure of real property.

The only two that don't get it are the op and whitefethr.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just stating what I heard on the news. :grin:

True I don't understand UM coverage after the accident / adverse verdict / wish we had settled before we knew we lost theories. I am pointing out to other consumers to ask questions, get it in writing and don't take an Insurance broker's word "Yeah your covered for that" Well your covered until something bad happens and our huge legal team can find a loophole"

Sounds to me like Progressive did everything they're supposed to do. It also sounds like the family of the deceased is looking for more money (unfortunately, no amount of money can bring their loved one ****** and they've found an attorney that is willing to pursue a bad faith claim. Big money in bad faith claims and the policy limits are off the table if we talk bad faith. If Progressive thinks the court might consider anything they've done as bad faith, maybe they'll pony up a few extra bucks. If that's the case, kind of slimy.

Family is looking for any deep pocket it can tap and they found legal counsel happy to assist. That is the central driver to this story. Progressive may be an SOB company but that is only peripheral.

BY FLATOUT71......Also consider the possibility that the at fault party may have had some personal assets that were only reachable with a verdict and the estates attorneys were out to get every penny possible. Therefore they may have refused a policy limits tender offer by Progressive and decided to try the case to verdict and then hit the UM policy and try to collect the excess verdict from the at fault party through a lien and perfect a judgement that would lead to seizure of real property.


No, don't consider this...The estate settled with the at fault party. Settlement means the claim is over, unless Progressive substituted the $25k. Otherwise, Progressive has waived their rights to collect any money via a judgment or otherwise.

Consider this instead, Progressive is an insurance company and insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying claims. They will fight tooth and nail, even when they know they are wrong. People are ignorant to insurance practices until they need it. They believe they are "good neighbors" and "do the right thing"...nothing is further from the truth. If State Farm was your neighbor and your house was on fire they would give you gas to put it out!

Consider this instead, Progressive is an insurance company and insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying claims. They will fight tooth and nail, even when they know they are wrong. People are ignorant to insurance practices until they need it. They believe they are "good neighbors" and "do the right thing"...nothing is further from the truth. If State Farm was your neighbor and your house was on fire they would give you gas to put it out!

The job of the claims handler is to provide to the policy holder the coverage that is due under the policy. If, while doing that, a claims handler can keep the costs down on the claim, great. But the focus is on giving the policy holder the benefits of his bargain.

It is the underwriters job to pick the risks. The claims guys job is to follow through with the coverage.

I heard the brother on a Boston radio station recently. He was on promoting a local Comedy Show, when the host asked him about it, I don't think it was "staged". He said that Progressive lawyers showed up at the trail and were working with the defendants lawyers, cross examining witnesses, trying to sway their opinion and blame the girl.

Just stating what I heard, locally

The job of the claims handler is to provide to the policy holder the coverage that is due under the policy. If, while doing that, a claims handler can keep the costs down on the claim, great. But the focus is on giving the policy holder the benefits of his bargain.

It is the underwriters job to pick the risks. The claims guys job is to follow through with the coverage.

You have been watching too many commercials. I bet you believe there is a pill that will make you lose 40lbs overnight as well.

You have been watching too many commercials. I bet you believe there is a pill that will make you lose 40lbs overnight as well.

I handle claims for a specialty insurer (legal mal., insurance agents mal, media, Tech). What I describe is what everyone of the people in my unit do every day.

I am not that familiar with property insurance policies, but there is no reason they should be handled any different.

The writer stated that the driver that ran the red light was uninsured. Then the writer states Nationwide paid up to the limit, and he was under-insured?

Poorly written.

Clear as mud.