Insurance company defends policy holder's killer to avoid payout
08-15-12, 04:46 PM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ca
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance company defends policy holder's killer to avoid payout
Progressive Insurance is slimy if they care about money more than their <dead> customers and has no ethical standards.... also a good lesson to ALWAYS buy un/under-insured motorist coverage, there are too many people driving illegally on the roads to risk it. I'll never look at "FLO" commercials the same again.
Sorry guys looks like Progressive has gotten a media blackout in the US, the really good story has been removed from MSN and the Examiner too. They must have threatened to pull advertising money. The only version I'm getting now is the UK version. If you read the original your blood would be boiling the UK version leaves out what happened in the court room
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ler-court.html
Sorry guys looks like Progressive has gotten a media blackout in the US, the really good story has been removed from MSN and the Examiner too. They must have threatened to pull advertising money. The only version I'm getting now is the UK version. If you read the original your blood would be boiling the UK version leaves out what happened in the court room
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ler-court.html
Last edited by toy4two; 08-15-12 at 04:59 PM.
08-21-12, 04:43 PM
#6
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame it on the law in Maryland.
The issue is her passenger, another witness and the driver of the SUV claim she ran the light not the suv driver. If that is the case, Progressive does not have to pay out the claim based on Maryland law.
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/yo...pagewanted=all
Much ado about nothing...
The issue is her passenger, another witness and the driver of the SUV claim she ran the light not the suv driver. If that is the case, Progressive does not have to pay out the claim based on Maryland law.
From the NY Times:
"The challenge with the coverage, however, is that it pays you money only if the other driver is at fault. Many states, recognizing the subtleties in assigning blame, will pay out partial claims based on the share of responsibility. But Maryland is among a small number of states where insurance policyholders may get nothing under the terms of their underinsured motorist policies if they’re even 1 percent at fault.
Much ado about nothing...
08-21-12, 05:27 PM
#7
Blame it on the law in Maryland.
The issue is her passenger, another witness and the driver of the SUV claim she ran the light not the suv driver. If that is the case, Progressive does not have to pay out the claim based on Maryland law.
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/yo...pagewanted=all
Much ado about nothing...
The issue is her passenger, another witness and the driver of the SUV claim she ran the light not the suv driver. If that is the case, Progressive does not have to pay out the claim based on Maryland law.
From the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/yo...pagewanted=all
Much ado about nothing...
i would stay clear of Progressive... well, well clear of them.
Kaitlynn Fisher was driving on N. Calvert Street in Baltimore when she was hit by an SUV on June 19, 2010.
Her Honda Insight was pushed onto a curb and head-on into a light pole by the impact. The other driver, Ronald Kevin Hope III, had run a red light. He was unharmed in the accident.
Mr Fisher, who is a comedian in New York, said that all the evidence pointed towards her innocence, with a witness even testifying that she had the green light, but Progressive still refused to pay.
He described the incident in a post on his blog entitled, 'My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz24EKpxHCB
Her Honda Insight was pushed onto a curb and head-on into a light pole by the impact. The other driver, Ronald Kevin Hope III, had run a red light. He was unharmed in the accident.
Mr Fisher, who is a comedian in New York, said that all the evidence pointed towards her innocence, with a witness even testifying that she had the green light, but Progressive still refused to pay.
He described the incident in a post on his blog entitled, 'My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz24EKpxHCB
Trending Topics
08-21-12, 05:41 PM
#8
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They did not pay for his lawyers 
http://online.wsj.com/article/APe0f7...73ab6e653.html
Nothing new. You have a claim and the insurance companies use the law on their side not to pay out the claim...
The Fisher family's lawyer, Annapolis, Md.-based attorney Allen Cohen, said it is technically true that Progressive was not representing the driver who caused the crash. During the trial, though, Progressive's attorney coordinated with the defense and put on witnesses who tried to undermine Kaitlynn Fisher's case, Cohen said.
According to Cohen, it's not necessarily unusual for an insurance company to go into court as an adversary of its client. But Cohen said it was unusual and wrong in this case because he believed that Progressive had ample reason to believe Kaitlynn was the victim, as well as a legal obligation of good faith toward its client. An independent witness at the scene testified that the other driver, Ronald K. Hope III of Baltimore, ran a red light and caused the accident. Even Hope's insurer, Nationwide, also did not dispute that Hope was at fault and paid $25,000, the limit of its coverage, to the Fisher family.
According to Cohen, it's not necessarily unusual for an insurance company to go into court as an adversary of its client. But Cohen said it was unusual and wrong in this case because he believed that Progressive had ample reason to believe Kaitlynn was the victim, as well as a legal obligation of good faith toward its client. An independent witness at the scene testified that the other driver, Ronald K. Hope III of Baltimore, ran a red light and caused the accident. Even Hope's insurer, Nationwide, also did not dispute that Hope was at fault and paid $25,000, the limit of its coverage, to the Fisher family.
Nothing new. You have a claim and the insurance companies use the law on their side not to pay out the claim...
08-21-12, 05:45 PM
#9
Heh... people screw and fraud insurance all the time. Here in NYC, if you get into an accident, you can walk into ANY bodyshop and they will recommend you to a medical office that will give you cash right away (usually $1500-$2500) to go there for physical therapy so they can bill your insurance for it. Probably tens of thousands. I know tons of people that would have a minor accident, and go for the therapy without having any injuries - just to receive the cash. There are even plenty of fraud cases, where people have staged accidents and then go for therapy. Not to mention that there are plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers that are happy to take your case and sue insurance companies for BS injuries plus pain and suffering.
People screw insurance companies constantly, out of billions of dollars. Why the hell should insurance companies be any different?
The society in the USA is rotten, and this is all its capable to produce.
People screw insurance companies constantly, out of billions of dollars. Why the hell should insurance companies be any different?
The society in the USA is rotten, and this is all its capable to produce.
08-21-12, 06:29 PM
#10
I'm not surprised that Progressive did this.......
We recently switched from Mercury Insurance to Progressive. Initially our premium was MUCH less than Mercury's, so we figured we got a great deal.......wrong.
When time came for the 6 month renewal, our premium was $30 HIGHER. But here's the kicker. The original quote included a BS one time "paperless discount" as well during the first 6 months we did the 'snapshot discount' which could earn up to 30% in a premium discount per car. Now I was wondering, I had earned 12% and my mother 11% discount on our premiums, and yet our total 6 month bill was higher.
I contacted Progressive and was told the paperless discount was a one time deal (not mentioned before), and that we had a random $200.XX premium hike because their records showed that in Florida there have been greater claims as of late (I find this to be such a BULLSPIT bait and switch tactic btw). So if we did not do the snapshot program, our price would be even higher. I will wait and see at the next renewal what the price will be.
Has anyone else had their insurance company jack up the premiums for all 3 cars totaling over $200 out of the blue? I find this to be VERY fishy.
We recently switched from Mercury Insurance to Progressive. Initially our premium was MUCH less than Mercury's, so we figured we got a great deal.......wrong.
When time came for the 6 month renewal, our premium was $30 HIGHER. But here's the kicker. The original quote included a BS one time "paperless discount" as well during the first 6 months we did the 'snapshot discount' which could earn up to 30% in a premium discount per car. Now I was wondering, I had earned 12% and my mother 11% discount on our premiums, and yet our total 6 month bill was higher.
I contacted Progressive and was told the paperless discount was a one time deal (not mentioned before), and that we had a random $200.XX premium hike because their records showed that in Florida there have been greater claims as of late (I find this to be such a BULLSPIT bait and switch tactic btw). So if we did not do the snapshot program, our price would be even higher. I will wait and see at the next renewal what the price will be.
Has anyone else had their insurance company jack up the premiums for all 3 cars totaling over $200 out of the blue? I find this to be VERY fishy.
08-21-12, 07:03 PM
#11
They did not pay for his lawyers
http://online.wsj.com/article/APe0f7...73ab6e653.html
Nothing new. You have a claim and the insurance companies use the law on their side not to pay out the claim...
http://online.wsj.com/article/APe0f7...73ab6e653.html
Nothing new. You have a claim and the insurance companies use the law on their side not to pay out the claim...
And you dont find that wrong? Do you work for progressive?
Since I have hard time believing someone neutral wouldnt find this wrong.
08-21-12, 07:05 PM
#12
Heh... people screw and fraud insurance all the time. Here in NYC, if you get into an accident, you can walk into ANY bodyshop and they will recommend you to a medical office that will give you cash right away (usually $1500-$2500) to go there for physical therapy so they can bill your insurance for it. Probably tens of thousands. I know tons of people that would have a minor accident, and go for the therapy without having any injuries - just to receive the cash. There are even plenty of fraud cases, where people have staged accidents and then go for therapy. Not to mention that there are plenty of ambulance chasing lawyers that are happy to take your case and sue insurance companies for BS injuries plus pain and suffering.
People screw insurance companies constantly, out of billions of dollars. Why the hell should insurance companies be any different?
The society in the USA is rotten, and this is all its capable to produce.
People screw insurance companies constantly, out of billions of dollars. Why the hell should insurance companies be any different?
The society in the USA is rotten, and this is all its capable to produce.
How does that math work?
I am sure you wont be getting policy from Progressive after this, so why act as this is normal? Would you now get policy from them?
It is easy - simply dont support companies that screw their customers over.
08-21-12, 07:52 PM
#14
I find in interesting that most of the people who posted here believe something from the British press and the losing attorney. If fact, Progressive did not pay to defend the defendent's case. Also missing in the "factual" statements from the deceased brother is that at least one of the people in her car testified that she ran the red light, not the SUV driver. It is so easy to trash a company on a forum like this without all the information. No, I don't work for Progressive. In fact, I don't even have Progressive insurance. I just think there should be some degree of fairness and interest in the facts.
Steve
Steve
08-22-12, 12:36 AM
#15
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The laws says, they don't have to pay out, if the driver is deemed responsible. The police report puts the blame on the deceased. Progressive has no incentive to pay out the claim when state law says, if you are 1% at fault, they don't have to pay the claim.
At the end of the day, it's normal insurance bs for a major claim. They take your money but when it is time to payout, they will drag it out as long as possible. It's been settled now so much ado about nothing.
No, I don't work for Progressive nor do I have a policy with them.
Last edited by Corey140; 08-22-12 at 01:17 AM.