Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We should get Gov't to handle all insurance in every industry, that way Gov't could screw us and it would be virtually impossible to sue them.According to Cohen, it's not necessarily unusual for an insurance company to go into court as an adversary of its client.
Yup.
Amazing to me that in one short century the Woodrow Wilson view of an 'Administrative State' under the control of wise and beneficent bureaucrats and 'experts' could take hold of what was once a 'can do' nation.
"Do you want an economic system in which you pay most of the money you earn to the government, and the government gives you back benefits on terms and conditions decided by politicians and bureaucrats? That is not the America of freedom and prosperity we have known for 300 years. That is the vision of Karl Marx. And that is what the secular-socialist design is about."
Gingrich, "To Save America," chapter 14.
so here they are complaining about the evil corporation not paying when they signed a contract to pay.
While I'm no fan of a Democrat-controlled anything, I have to say in this case, I cannot fault Progressive.
As the story states, the passenger in the car driven by Progressive's customer made statements that supported the idea that they were at fault, not the other driver. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the insurer to work to place blame where it deserves to be placed. In fact, they have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to do so. Remember, an insurance company is not only representing their customer, they must represent their shareholders AND the various regulatory rules and laws, all of which require them to assign blame for an accident accurately.
Of course, if Progressive had been successful in court in placing negligence with the other driver, that driver's insurance would have covered the Progressive customer's costs to be made whole. The customer (and their family) was never in danger of not being covered.
When the jury sided with the other driver, Progressive said "fine" and paid the claim, just like the law demands. There really is nothing here worth worrying about in my opinion.
so here they are complaining about the evil corporation not paying when they signed a contract to pay.
Is that really what you think?
While I'm no fan of a Democrat-controlled anything, I have to say in this case, I cannot fault Progressive.
As the story states, the passenger in the car driven by Progressive's customer made statements that supported the idea that they were at fault, not the other driver. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the insurer to work to place blame where it deserves to be placed. In fact, they have a fiduciary and legal responsibility to do so. Remember, an insurance company is not only representing their customer, they must represent their shareholders AND the various regulatory rules and laws, all of which require them to assign blame for an accident accurately.
Of course, if Progressive had been successful in court in placing negligence with the other driver, that driver's insurance would have covered the Progressive customer's costs to be made whole. The customer (and their family) was never in danger of not being covered.
When the jury sided with the other driver, Progressive said "fine" and paid the claim, just like the law demands. There really is nothing here worth worrying about in my opinion.
Uh, I think your facts are a little messed up here. The driver insured by Progressive DIED, therefore, could not possibly have made any statements that "they were at fault".
Also, the issue at hand was that the driver (who died) had a policy for underinsured drivers of OTHER vehicles. There was never a question who was at fault, and the other drivers insurance did immediately pay. However, the family of the deceased was still due for the under insured portion.