Ford Focus ST Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
Holy Shit. This is beyond LOW. Glad I stayed with ALLSTATE.

I understand that Progressive lost the case and are now " working with the fisher family", but that was 2 years of hell.
This is shameful behavior for a business, absolutely appalling.
Mr.Moffett, how can you look your own children in the eye?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I have no dog in this fight, but Progressive just posted an update saying they did not represent the killer, Nationwide did, and the case was just settled in the favor of the deceased. Sometimes these things need to play out in order to hear the complete story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
All I know is geico is incredibly cheap. I was paying 220 a month with Home Owners, got quoted for 180 at esurance and progressive. Geico is 140 a month.

What really makes me think though, is how in the world can I get a nearly identical insurance rate for a car that is faster, newer, and smaller? How auto insurance works I'll never know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
My first response to this article was "The press gets things wrong." My second response "We don't know, but I very much doubt Progressive hired an attorney against its own interests."

If she was found negligent, Progressive pays out her claim without reimbursement. If the opposing party was found negligent, Progressive doesn't pay anything out of their pockets. So something seems very wrong about the information that the victim's family is reporting. Very wrong.

Just because someone says something on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true, that they have their facts right, or any facts right. This is a highly emotional courtroom case for the family who lost a loved one, and its easy to confuse what you think you heard. It's one of those stories that really requires reporters to get their facts straight, and I'd go as far as saying that you need a transcript of what was really said in the courtroom to know the real truth of what was said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
My first response to this article was "The press gets things wrong." My second response "We don't know, but I very much doubt Progressive hired an attorney against its own interests."

If she was found negligent, Progressive pays out her claim without reimbursement. If the opposing party was found negligent, Progressive doesn't pay anything out of their pockets. So something seems very wrong about the information that the victim's family is reporting. Very wrong.

Just because someone says something on the Internet, doesn't mean it's true, that they have their facts right, or any facts right. This is a highly emotional courtroom case for the family who lost a loved one, and its easy to confuse what you think you heard. It's one of those stories that really requires reporters to get their facts straight, and I'd go as far as saying that you need a transcript of what was really said in the courtroom to know the real truth of what was said.
Frankenbike, go read the second post about the experience with the attorney in the courtroom. Someone posted the MD court record earlier today on Progressive's FB page, and the attorney mentioned was indeed listed as an aid to the defense.

Hard to argue otherwise on this one, buddy.

I agree with you that sometimes emotions get in the way, but this one appears to be accurate. If so, its pretty unconscionable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Frankenbike, go read the second post about the experience with the attorney in the courtroom. Someone posted the MD court record earlier today on Progressive's FB page, and the attorney mentioned was indeed listed as an aid to the defense.

Hard to argue otherwise on this one, buddy.

I agree with you that sometimes emotions get in the way, but this one appears to be accurate. If so, its pretty unconscionable.
Can I get a link to that post, or even the specific Progressive FB page? I didn't see anything on the searches of multiple Progressive FB pages.

For their part, Progressive denies defending the defendant: Understanding Insurance - Statement on the Fisher Case

Whatever happened, Progressive's PR department sucked at responding appropriately. But every report I've read or saw assumes, without fact checking, that Fisher's post was 100% true and correct. And that his interpretation is true and correct. It's one of those accusations that are so serious, that it warrants more than a "He said, she said" exchange of interviews for me to take sides. When it comes to court cases, nobody can be believed 100%. Everyone has their own axe to grind, their own distortions of reality and their own interpretation of events.

If real research proves that in fact Progressive Insurance provided a lawyer to act in defense against their client's interest, then they deserve everything that's being said about them, and nothing short of an apology and a policy that ends the practice is an acceptable resolution. Was there a Progressive lawyer there? If so, what were they there for? Did they provide assistance? Were they trying to find out what case the defense had, so they could prepare for a settlement if the case was as their customer's family claimed? All I've seen so far is lazy reporting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Can I get a link to that post, or even the specific Progressive FB page? I didn't see anything on the searches of multiple Progressive FB pages.

For their part, Progressive denies defending the defendant: Understanding Insurance - Statement on the Fisher Case

Whatever happened, Progressive's PR department sucked at responding appropriately. But every report I've read or saw assumes, without fact checking, that Fisher's post was 100% true and correct. And that his interpretation is true and correct. It's one of those accusations that are so serious, that it warrants more than a "He said, she said" exchange of interviews for me to take sides. When it comes to court cases, nobody can be believed 100%. Everyone has their own axe to grind, their own distortions of reality and their own interpretation of events.

If real research proves that in fact Progressive Insurance provided a lawyer to act in defense against their client's interest, then they deserve everything that's being said about them, and nothing short of an apology and a policy that ends the practice is an acceptable resolution. Was there a Progressive lawyer there? If so, what were they there for? Did they provide assistance? Were they trying to find out what case the defense had, so they could prepare for a settlement if the case was as their customer's family claimed? All I've seen so far is lazy reporting.
I do not have the link anymore (was at work and let it go after my post here), but you can go look it up in public records with the State of MD. Its all right there, IMO, pretty clearly.

You don't have to trust me, nor do I expect you to, but FWIW, I had the same reaction. That is, perhaps there is more to this story. But the more I read away from his posts, the more it appears he is correct. I fully understand MD and Progressive's insistence that a party be found at fault completely before a final judgment can be awarded. That alone is hard to swallow when you have to go through it after the loss of a loved one. But I understand the necessity.

However, the court records certainly show that there was Progressive-retained counsel on hand on behalf of the defendant. Progressive's statement is technically correct. He was not the primary counsel of the defendant, but was listed as an attorney to speak on the defense's behalf. I couldn't really read it any other way. That, coupled with the Fisher's second post about what he witnessed first-hand in the courtroom (which is obviously more than the basic docket records show) have me convinced that this is what happened. In the second post, he'd have to be lying to an extent that would be absurd, risking his career, his finances, and an assured libel suit. I don't know what more REAL research you want other than a court record. Again, if you're not trusting those aside from Fisher, then you'll need to go look it up yourself.

To the more important thing at hand here, in my mind...

The court/jury found the defendant guilty as charged, which then binds Progressive to pay out the policy. And yet in their statement they want to "continue to work...to reach a resolution."? WTF? I mean, this is about as resolved as it gets, regardless of the attorney situation, which appears to be accurate anyway. The resolution is to cut the GD check. There really isn't any need for a continuance of work other than to fill in the check amount and mail it. In their PR case, they should've wired it with a public apology and future commitment to fairness and respect to their clients.

I can't imagine there is a scenario, especially post verdict, where there is an excuse for this kind of corporate behavior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
FB,

Here is more about it, including screenshots and explanations. They match what I saw personally following the state records link.

Progressive Insurance’s Response To The Fisher Scandal Is A Textbook Example Of A PR Catastrophe | Mediaite

edit: Also, after further reading prompted by your response, I saw at least one legal response over at Gawker that stated this is SOP (the legal defense of the party you are suing in court in order to indirectly defend "yourself"). So in that regard, Fisher is complaining about something that apparently happens with at least some regularity.

Taking that into account, it appears there are really two issues here in my mind:

1. Progressive, which had already lost the case (and as the above article mentioned), should've just sacked up, said they lost the case, and that they were paying the policy out in full and had followed legal procedures as they needed to in MD, and apologize that the law requires such procedures. Major bonehead move here. Calculated and smarmy the way they "handled" it. I'm sure the entire PR and social media team has been fired now, and deserve every bit of that dismissal.

2. Since this is SOP, the next begged question is, "Why?" It's clearly legal, but certainly morally reprehensible by the majority of public opinion. At best, insurance companies could halt the practice first to create a positive PR move spun out from this that would kill two with one. I wonder how often the company's attorney makes a difference in the case anyway. At worst, its just proof that like we pretty much all know in the back of our minds, insurance companies would literally rather you die in a fire or by gunshot quickly. They won't pay for it if you die slowly of cancer anyway, even thought they also won't pay for preventative screening for that same cancer. Same is true of auto insurers. Some are necessary only because of law, and others because its the best of the worst options available. America might be safer than Somalia, but the undercurrents of rule by murderous thugs is no different and just as human. We're just all complacent enough to not believe it's happening. Thus, I believe, the outrage in this case. An undercurrent of realization that we know is there, brought to our attention all too conspicuously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
If it's SOP, we have a completely different narrative. Not exactly the sort the insurance companies as a whole would want as a meme that catches on, during an election year.

If its all true, the whole insurance industry should be pilloried. And the legislature that colluded with them to make this possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
If it's SOP, we have a completely different narrative. Not exactly the sort the insurance companies as a whole would want as a meme that catches on, during an election year.

If its all true, the whole insurance industry should be pilloried. And the legislature that colluded with them to make this possible.
Yup. Something like that. Of course, this was based on a comment on Gawker. Beware! lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
State Farm. They may be a bit more expensive, but are worth every penny. What good is insurance if they never pay?
I've had State Farm for almost 10 years now. Had a few accidents, one involving a un-insured person t-boning my truck when I had the green light. State Farm went above and beyond to provide everything I needed to get back to where I was before the accident. I highly recommend State Farm.

PS: USAA quotes me $180/mo for the same coverage I pay $104/mo with State Farm. I'm an E-4 in the Air Force.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top