Insurance Journal Forums

Is this true? Any agents out there know?

Its the supposed story of a Progressive insured, killed wrongfully in a wreck, then denied payment for UR coverage. Apparently, Progressive defended the killer in order to avoid payment to their own insured. Which if true, makes me wonder about ever selling this company.

http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29338 ... defend-her

I'm on the West Coast so not familiar w/Maryland laws, but a quick search online shows that UM is not required. If the deceased didn't have UM then Progressive technically had nothing to pay out on...still slimy that they represented the other party in court.

Maybe the other driver had Progressive as well? Did not see anything mentioned as to the other carrier, except that he was underinsured.

Found some more on it today.

Maryland law does not allow an insured to sue a company that denies coverage...What the heck kind of state does that???

So, insured is dead, parents on the hook for huge student loans. At fault driver had minimum limits. Insured had large UR to cover difference. Insured's parents had to go to court to get a civil decree of fault on the part of the other driver, which the insured's company Progressive defended...and the good news is lost, to the tune of $760,000.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... rogre.html

If you will read the Progressive response, you will see that the case went to trial because there were conflicting witness stories. Death does not make the other person at fault. Inorder to collect under UIM coverage the third party must be at fault. Looks like Progressive felt the liability issue was in question.

Nothing like taking legal issues to the public media, where the "experts" can make a determination of what needs to be done.

In the 40 years I was in the claim and trial business, took a lot of similar cases to trial. Just because they are insured with you does not mean you owe the claim

I'm very surprised that there have only been a handful of comments to this board about this case. With all of the agents who represent PGR I would think there would be numerous comments on both sides (for and against) PGR's handling of this claim. I believe I was told years ago that MD has very few insurance companies providing auto insurance compared to a state like Ohio, where thousands of companies write business. Anyone know if that is correct? Any PGR agents hearing from their customers about this case?

Nationwide never contested liability. Progressive did not accept that Nationwide was 100% liable so they wouldn't have to pay out the UM coverage. Progressive told the deceased insured's family they would have to sue the driver and get a verdict in their favor, then Progressive would pay the amount above Nationwide's limits. When the family sued, Progressive then defended the driver because if they had won, they wouldn't have had to pay out the UM. It was a business decision in an attempt to save money; a shady business decision. If I had Progressive, after seeing this, I'd have left them the following day.

I was told that Progressive accepted liability on behalf of their driver because of the police report and her own passengers stating she had run the red light. They were already paying liability BI to the passengers in her car. In the end, Progressive paid out liability and then had to turn around and pay out UIM because the passengers changed their statements at trial. Technically Progressive could now subrogate for the money back that they paid out on the liability but they are not going to. Everyone is always ready to assume the big bad insurance companies are monsters without seeking out the truth first.

I have seen not one article indicating Fisher was at fault. They all point to, including the jury verdict that the other driver was at fault - So that part of your statement is probably false.

Also, it seems Progressive stated to Matt Fisher they were not defending the other driver in court, then admitted it...this is usually calling lying isn't it? So who you gonna believe???

This article discusses the issues determining fault regarding this Progressive auto insurance claim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/your- ... y_20120820

Thanks for the link Robert!

From the NYTIMES..."Progressive sure seems to have done absolutely everything wrong here. It paid out three liability claims, doubled down in court on its interpretation of the evidence that was behind those payouts, lost in court, was roundly mocked online, will pay the underinsured motorist claim to the Fishers after all and is now also paying them a separate settlement to avoid a hearing before the state insurance commissioner."

“I think they’re still hoping that we are what they originally thought we were: stupid people that they could bully,” Joan Fisher said.

I only know about this case what I have read in this forum and in the NY Times article from the above link. And I'm no claims expert, just a long-time insurance agent. But a few things have irked me about some of these posts.

Looks to me like Progressive made an early determination that their insured was at fault. This, based on 2 witnesses, including one in her own car (very compelling), saying the insured ran the red light and one witness not involved in the accident saying the other driver ran the red light. Tough call and no way to absolutely know for sure. So, Progressive paid out liability claims to three people. No weasling so far. Had Progressive not done that, the insured and Progressive would likely have been taken to court sooner and fault determined at that point. I don't know if Maryland is a comparative-negligence state like Florida.

Maybe Progressive erred in it's original determination of fault, who knows? Regardless, why would Progressive pay out on liability then turn around and say their insured is no longer at fault so they can pay out on the UM also? No company would do that. And of course, after paying out full BI limits because their insured was at fault, they would defend that in court if challenged to pay the other side too. The circumstances here dictated that in court Progressive would defend the "position" that their own insured was at fault. Saying Progressive "defended their insured's killer" is wonderfully effective and inflammatory but it doesn't strike me as an accurate description of what went on here.

This was a horrible tragedy for the insured's family. No winners here. But her student loan bills and unfulfilled potential are completely irrelevant to how Progressive or any other carrier should handle a claim such as this. So now Progressive has the distinction of paying out full limits for both BI and UM and is getting beat up for it. Let the media and internet go crazy with all this, but in a forum of insurance professionals, we should know better.

Ravisseur wrote: Maybe Progressive erred in it's original determination of fault, who knows? Regardless, why would Progressive pay out on liability then turn around and say their insured is no longer at fault so they can pay out on the UM also? No company would do that. And of course, after paying out full BI limits because their insured was at fault, they would defend that in court if challenged to pay the other side too. The circumstances here dictated that in court Progressive would defend the "position" that their own insured was at fault. Saying Progressive "defended their insured's killer" is wonderfully effective and inflammatory but it doesn't strike me as an accurate description of what went on here.

Progressive derseves to get beat up for this. They bought the ticket. They get the ride. I understand why they wouldn't pay out the UM after paying out all the BI limits, but they had no obligation to "defend their position" by representing the other driver in court. If/when the jury decided in the insured's family's favor, Progressive would not have a judgement placed against them. The family would have had to file a bad faith claim, and win, afterward to force Progressive to pay out. Now, we may all agree that would have been a sure win (and obviously so did Progressive), but it still doesn't obligate Progressive to defend anything or anyone in that case. Nationwide was obligated to defend the other driver. Because they would have simply admitted liability and offered policy limits, Progressive decided to jump in and attempt to win. Saying Progressive "defended their insured's killer" is an extremely accurate description.

The only place the family screwed up IMO, is they should have went through with a bad faith suit instead of settling for the $760k. Given the facts of this story, I believe a jury would have awarded a lot more in punitive damages.

Ravisseur, your post is common sense and I agree with your points. One is that Progressive was not "defending her killer" per se but was defending the liability position they had already accepted. In forums and blogs anything can be said, whether it's true or not. I posted on here because I had my facts direct from Progressive and did not like seeing so much false info being thrown out here. In a fatality case there are never any winners.

Our agency just recently had a client insured with progressive with a loss. our client is a towing operation. His tow truck caught fire and destroyed the tow truck and the autos he was towing were damaged as well. Progressive paid our insured for the damage to his truck, but denied to pay anything on the autos that were being towed despite our insured having on'hook cover -L (Legal Liability). Their reasoning for denial is that our insured had no legal liability as they state the cause of loss was a mechanical failure. Is a vehicle catching on fire a mechanical failure? If our insured is not legally liable, then who is? No one else was involved and the cars were in his CCC.