Progressive Insurance?

[Gary F]

What do you think about this?

A brother has hit out at an insurance company after it paid for lawyers to defend the negligent driver who killed his sister to avoid paying out on her policy in full.
Kaitlynn Fisher, 24, was hit and killed by a driver who ran a red light in Baltimore.
Now Matt Fisher, Katie's older brother, wrote a desperate account of his family's fight with Progressive, an auto insurance company, after they resorted to extreme measures to avoid the bill.
Mr Fisher says that not only did Progressive refuse to pay the $100,000 policy to her estate, they even went so far as to pay for her killer's attorney.
At the trial, the guy who killed my sister was defended by Progressive’s legal team,' Mr Fisher said.
If you are insured by Progressive, and they owe you money, they will defend your killer in court in order to not pay you your policy.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fends-drivers-killer-court.html#ixzz23WWMxR2w
​

 

[wsuffa]

Not enough information.

HAving said that, it would be expected that an insurance company would retain and use an attorney to protect their interest (or what they believe is their interest based on the contract). So the fact that they hired and used an attorney is not troubling. As for whether the limit and/or denial is appropriate, there are not enough facts to determine. That's the job of the court system.

 

[Gary F]

Not enough information.

HAving said that, it would be expected that an insurance company would retain and use an attorney to protect their interest (or what they believe is their interest based on the contract). So the fact that they hired and used an attorney is not troubling. As for whether the limit and/or denial is appropriate, there are not enough facts to determine. That's the job of the court system.

I'm troubled. I know British tabloids may not be considered the ultimate arbiter of truth but if you believe the facts as presented the insurance company definitely took the low road. I would not want to do business with that kind of insurance company.


http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29338478278/my-sister-paid-progressive-insurance-to-defend-her

 

[ChrisK]

I'm troubled. I know British tabloids may not be considered the ultimate arbiter of truth but if you believe the facts as presented the insurance company definitely took the low road. I would not want to do business with any insurance company.


http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29338478278/my-sister-paid-progressive-insurance-to-defend-her

FTFY. All insurance companies hire lawyers to defend their clients when a claim is made on their policy regardless of circumstance. The only way they'd reverse this policy is if they determined that negative public opinion would lose them more money than rolling on a proper defense.

It is tragic when someone dies, but our courts are there to arbitrate exactly this kind of unfortunate tragedy. Hopefully justice will be swift and appropriate.

 

[AuntPeggy]

FTFY. All insurance companies hire lawyers to defend their clients when a claim is made on their policy regardless of circumstance. The only way they'd reverse this policy is if they determined that negative public opinion would lose them more money than rolling on a proper defense.

It is tragic when someone dies, but our courts are there to arbitrate exactly this kind of unfortunate tragedy. Hopefully justice will be swift and appropriate.

It would appear that the insurance company hired lawyers to defend their client's killer.

'One indication that the case was pretty open-and-shut was that the other guy’s insurance company looked at the situation and settled with my sister’s estate basically immediately,' Mr Fisher wrote.

'Now, because the other driver was under-insured, that payment didn’t amount to much, but my sister carried a policy with Progressive against the possibility of an accident with an under-insured driver.'

Mr Fisher says that because of her policy, Progressive was required to pay the difference between the driver's insurance and the value of Kaitlynn's policy. They refused.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fends-drivers-killer-court.html#ixzz23WhCJ9sy

 

[ChrisK]

It would appear that the insurance company hired lawyers to defend their client's killer.

Ok I don't mind eating crow if properly served, but... Progressive didn't have a pre-existing relationship with the other driver at all?

It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest here. Like, this would only make sense if the driver were also carrying Progressive.

 

[steingar]

I filed a claim with Progressive after I rear-eneded a land yacht with the Goldwing. They were courteous and professional, and I never heard another thing about it until I got my insurance bill, which was reduced.

 

[jtheune]

It would appear that the insurance company hired lawyers to defend their client's killer.

More to the point they hired lawyers to defend their interests. It happened to be in this case it was also the interest of the defendant too. Without more information it's hard to say why they did it.

 

[Gary F]

Ok I don't mind eating crow if properly served, but... Progressive didn't have a pre-existing relationship with the other driver at all?

It seems to me that there is a conflict of interest here. Like, this would only make sense if the driver were also carrying Progressive.

Apparently not because the other driver's insurance settled with the victim's family. The problem was that the negligent driver had little insurance so the victim's family wanted Progressive Insurance to make up the difference since she had purchased under-insured coverage.

 

[zaitcev]

Apparently not because the other driver's insurance settled with the victim's family. The problem was that the negligent driver had little insurance so the victim's family wanted Progressive Insurance to make up the difference since she had purchased under-insured coverage.

Nowhere in the article it mentions the amount. Not to mention that what the eff family wants the money for? Was that gal a breadwinnder?

This sort of ridiculous suit by the "kin" ruined GA in America.

Also, Tumblr is the worst cesspool on the Internet these days. Yes, possibly worse than 4chan and SA. The fact that the social media war emanates from there makes me very suspicious.

 

[ChrisK]

Are they just suing for the policy amount, or for some sort of punitive windfall?

 

[AuntPeggy]

Nowhere in the article it mentions the amount. Not to mention that what the eff family wants the money for? Was that gal a breadwinnder?

This sort of ridiculous suit by the "kin" ruined GA in America.

Also, Tumblr is the worst cesspool on the Internet these days. Yes, possibly worse than 4chan and SA. The fact that the social media war emanates from there makes me very suspicious.

The amount is $760,000

The 'gal' is a breadwinner.
Kaitlynn was a graduate of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore with a undergraduate degree in engineering. She then went on to graduate school, earning a Masters of Materials degree from the same school.
She was working as a contracted employee for the Army Research Laboratory in Aberdeen, MD. There are extensive educational loans to pay.

The family is not suing Honda. It is not the same as suing Cirrus after flying into an apartment building.
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.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Are they just suing for the policy amount, or for some sort of punitive windfall?

They are suing for the amount awarded by a jury in the civil suit against the driver.

 

[Theboys]

I'm sorry but I have dealt with Progressive before and I will go way out of my way to avoid them. I have never been so angry in my life. They could offer me insurance for free and I would turn them down.

 

[ChrisK]

I'm sorry but I have dealt with Progressive before and I will go way out of my way to avoid them. I have never been so angry in my life. They could offer me insurance for free and I would turn them down.

See, I have found Progressive very easy to deal with, and we've had a couple accidents (both our fault and not our fault) over the years. We drop our vehicle off at their facility and they hand us a rental car right there. We always are able to pick up our vehicles after just a few days, no hassles.

This, of course, is a whole different animal, and I've never been able to say I loved an insurance company. They are all in it to make money at the expense of their customers, period.

 

[steingar]

Just out of curiosity, why two Progressive threads? Gary started them both.

 

[denverpilot]

The amount is $760,000

The 'gal' is a breadwinner.
Kaitlynn was a graduate of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore with a undergraduate degree in engineering. She then went on to graduate school, earning a Masters of Materials degree from the same school.
She was working as a contracted employee for the Army Research Laboratory in Aberdeen, MD. There are extensive educational loans to pay.

Government backed education loans are cleared at death. But private loans are whatever was on the contract.

That's a lot of private educational loans.

Something to keep in mind when taking out loans for expensive schools... you can sign your family into the poorhouse via your estate.

Sadly, a $1M term life insurance policy for a healthy woman would have run about the cost of one plate of dinner a month and would have easily covered the $750K.

Uninsured motorist is a scam meant to recoup the insurance company's losses.

 

[Palmpilot]

What do you think about this?

A brother has hit out at an insurance company after it paid for lawyers to defend the negligent driver who killed his sister to avoid paying out on her policy in full.
Kaitlynn Fisher, 24, was hit and killed by a driver who ran a red light in Baltimore.
Now Matt Fisher, Katie's older brother, wrote a desperate account of his family's fight with Progressive, an auto insurance company, after they resorted to extreme measures to avoid the bill.
Mr Fisher says that not only did Progressive refuse to pay the $100,000 policy to her estate, they even went so far as to pay for her killer's attorney.
At the trial, the guy who killed my sister was defended by Progressive’s legal team,' Mr Fisher said.
If you are insured by Progressive, and they owe you money, they will defend your killer in court in order to not pay you your policy.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fends-drivers-killer-court.html#ixzz23WWMxR2w
​

An attorney with a local radio program has said many times that insurance companies have a duty to defend. For example, if the suit is for more than the policy limits, they are not allowed to just pay the policy limits and leave the insured person on the hook for the rest without providing an attorney and a defense.

 

[Gary F]

Nowhere in the article it mentions the amount. Not to mention that what the eff family wants the money for? Was that gal a breadwinnder?

This sort of ridiculous suit by the "kin" ruined GA in America.

Also, Tumblr is the worst cesspool on the Internet these days. Yes, possibly worse than 4chan and SA. The fact that the social media war emanates from there makes me very suspicious.

not only did Progressive refuse to pay the $100,000 policy to her estate, they even went so far as to pay for her killer's attorney.

​

Faced with outstanding student loans, the Fisher family tried to sue Progressive. Unfortunately, the State of Maryland does not allow claimants to sue an insurance company. One must first sue the person who did not have sufficient insurance to establish negligence, Mr Fisher said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fends-drivers-killer-court.html#ixzz23XxCCbiW
​

Student loans needed to be paid. If somebody negligently kills somebody the estate may be compensated for the death. This was not a frivolous lawsuit. Running a red light was clear negligence. The victim was a professional woman and $100,000 is not an unreasonable amount to compensate the family. I wonder how much Progressive paid to assist the driver that killed their customer. I agree that it looks bad when somebody wants to profit from another persons death but that occurs in our legal system. The problem I have with this is that it appears the family had a legitimate claim against the other driver and the person killed bought insurance to cover the cost of the other driver's negligence if underinsured. I think this was a serious conflict of interest on the part of the insurance company.

 

[Gary F]

An attorney with a local radio program has said many times that insurance companies have a duty to defend. For example, if the suit is for more than the policy limits, they are not allowed to just pay the policy limits and leave the insured person on the hook for the rest without providing an attorney and a defense.

Defend the person who killed the policy holder to make it harder to pay off on a policy? You gotta be kidding.

 

[darrell]

Ms. Fisher's policy required Progressive to pay an additional benefit when the other driver was found to be under-insured. However, for the benefit to be paid, the other driver must be found negligent by a court of law (based on that particular state's laws). So Ms. Fisher's estate (I think it was her parents) sued the other driver in order to have him found negligent and therefore force Progressive to pay the benefit as stipulated by Ms. Fisher's policy. It was during those proceedings that Progressive legel defense team defended the other driver, in an effort to prevent the other driver from being found negligent and therefore relieving Progressive of their requirement to pay. The other driver was still found negligent, but Ms. Fisher's family lost a significant amount of money in legal fees.

 

[Gary F]

Are they just suing for the policy amount, or for some sort of punitive windfall?

They wanted the $100,000 limit of her policy minus the policy limit of the negligent driver's insurance. The negligent driver had little insurance. The victim paid Progressive to make up the difference in the event she had an accident with an uninsured or under-insured driver.

 

[Gary F]

Just out of curiosity, why two Progressive threads? Gary started them both.

Sorry. After I started the sz thread I decided it really belonged here. I removed the reference to the Progressive's chairman's political affiliation to sanitize it and make it suitable for hangar talk.

 

[denverpilot]

The insurance company acting sleazy is no surprise.

The interesting question is, what was the other guy's defense? They wouldn't have been able to do what they did if there wasn't an adequate defense for what he did.

And why does Maryland say you can't have due process with your insurer? Working hard for their constituents, huh? Wow.

 

[ElPaso Pilot]

Followup information to the original story in Consumerist.com

http://consumerist.com/2012/08/why-...-at-fault-driver-in-a-fatal-car-accident.html

... Since then, some relevant information has come to our attention, along with a possible explanation for why an insurance company would defend the other driver.

First, a quick read of the case info in the Baltimore City Circuit Court finds that Progressive did not initially act as the attorney for the other driver. The attorney listed as his representative is actually a lawyer from a Maryland firm that reportedly handles litigated car insurance claims for Nationwide in the state.

Progressive was first listed as a "related" party when the case went to (and failed) mediation. It was later listed as a defendant in the case when a jury trial was requested. The insurer subsequently filed a motion for substitution of service, which would allow the Progressive lawyers to act on the defendant's behalf, though it's currently unclear exactly what role the company's lawyers played in the courtroom.

... an auto insurance expert who has been involved in litigation in Maryland in the past tells Consumerist that it's not unheard of for this to happen.

"A lot of the facts are not known," cautions the expert. "But it appears that Progressive thought that the liability issue was not clear-cut and that, under Maryland law, Progressive was placed in the position of intervening in the defense of the other driver in order to resolve the liability case."

"None of this is clear cut," she adds. "There are cases when the injured party's insurance company will pay the policy limits on behalf of the other carrier and then take over the handling of the claim. This has to be done if there is a real liability issue. If the injured party's carrier agrees to the other carrier paying out the minimal limits then the courts can say that they agree that the other party is 100% at fault.

... Also important to this case is that it occurred in Maryland, which uses what's known as "Contributory Negligence" as its law to settle civil suits.

"That means that if you are even 1% at fault for the accident you are barred from any recovery," the expert explains, adding that most states have laws that look at comparative negligence in determining payouts.

"In most states, you can collect if you are up to 50% at fault but only the portion that you are not responsible for," she tells Consumerist. So if you were 40% at fault, you can collect 60% of your damages.

"But not in Maryland," says the expert. "One percent and you don't get anything."
...

 

[Gary F]

The insurance company acting sleazy is no surprise.

The interesting question is, what was the other guy's defense? They wouldn't have been able to do what they did if there wasn't an adequate defense for what he did.

Or Progressive thought that their in house attorneys could beat the attorney paid for by their policy holder's family. Not really a fair fight and they still lost.

And why does Maryland say you can't have due process with your insurer? Working hard for their constituents, huh? Wow.

Very good question. Who enforces insurance contracts in that state?

 

[TedR3]

... Also important to this case is that it occurred in Maryland, which uses what's known as "Contributory Negligence" as its law to settle civil suits.

"That means that if you are even 1% at fault for the accident you are barred from any recovery," the expert explains, adding that most states have laws that look at comparative negligence in determining payouts.

"In most states, you can collect if you are up to 50% at fault but only the portion that you are not responsible for," she tells Consumerist. So if you were 40% at fault, you can collect 60% of your damages.

"But not in Maryland," says the expert. "One percent and you don't get anything."

This would seem to explain it. If Progressive could show she was 1% at fault, then it would not have to pay.

This is an unfortunate effect of "tort reform". The insurance companies benefit by paying fewer claims and we are supposed to benefit by paying lower premiums. But it sucks when your tort claim gets reformed.

 

[Palmpilot]

Defend the person who killed the policy holder to make it harder to pay off on a policy? You gotta be kidding.

Oops, sorry. Didn't read carefully enough.

 

[Gary F]

This would seem to explain it. If Progressive could show she was 1% at fault, then it would not have to pay.

This is an unfortunate effect of "tort reform". The insurance companies benefit by paying fewer claims and we are supposed to benefit by paying lower premiums. But it sucks when your tort claim gets reformed.

That is just as ridiculous as joint and several liability where if one of multiple defendants is only 1% at fault they can be responsible for 100% of the award.

 

[denverpilot]

And people wonder why the youngsters snap and just start shooting people.

Great system we've built for them to live in, folks. Lets have some more laws. That'll fix it!

Meanwhile, Maryland sounds extra-stupid if they voted away their rights to sue their contractors and vendors in the insurance business. Wow. Dumb. Insurance companies are never on your side. They're just meeting the letter of the contract.

They don't care at all about you as a person, but they're always acting like they do in lots of really expensive commercials during prime-time. When you see someone or something spending that much money to tell you how wonderful they are, it's blatantly obvious that they're not.

 

[Gary F]

Meanwhile, Maryland sounds extra-stupid if they voted away their rights to sue their contractors and vendors in the insurance business. Wow. Dumb. Insurance companies are never on your side. They're just meeting the letter of the contract.

It appears that they may not even be meeting the letter of the contract. I guess that you have to file a complaint with the state insurance commission to get them to honor the policy. A contract is worthless without a mechanism to enforce it.

 

[wsuffa]

It appears that they may not even be meeting the letter of the contract. I guess that you have to file a complaint with the state insurance commission to get them to honor the policy. A contract is worthless without a mechanism to enforce it.

Unless you know the specific wording of the contract AND the legal interpertations of the specific language, you can't determine whether they have or have not met the letter of the contract.

I sure as heck would not rely on press or internet reports to determine what they may or may not be doing, nor the language of the contract.

THe ONLY way to do it is to review the contract itself and the court filings. And you need to do that with legal education about the meaning under the specific laws of the state of venue.

With that, I'm done with this thread.

 

[denverpilot]

Unless you know the specific wording of the contract AND the legal interpertations of the specific language, you can't determine whether they have or have not met the letter of the contract.

I sure as heck would not rely on press or internet reports to determine what they may or may not be doing, nor the language of the contract.

THe ONLY way to do it is to review the contract itself and the court filings. And you need to do that with legal education about the meaning under the specific laws of the state of venue.

With that, I'm done with this thread.

The threads always go to the details because no one wants to say what's really going on. Truly, the thread was never about the contract. The thread was about the missing morals of society.

There's no fix for the lack of morals that leads to this type of case even making it to the courtroom. Multiple people had to approve suing their customer and the lawyers had to agree to do it.

That's some truly awful people right there. Led by even worse ones.

 

[Gary F]

Unless you know the specific wording of the contract AND the legal interpertations of the specific language, you can't determine whether they have or have not met the letter of the contract.

I sure as heck would not rely on press or internet reports to determine what they may or may not be doing, nor the language of the contract.

THe ONLY way to do it is to review the contract itself and the court filings. And you need to do that with legal education about the meaning under the specific laws of the state of venue.

With that, I'm done with this thread.

I agree that it would be nice to see the wording of the contract but the most reasonable explanation is that the insurance company thought they could save money by defending the negligent driver. All they needed was to have their policy holder victim declared at least 1% responsible and then no payout. I would not be surprised if somebody here has Progressive insurance and could check the wording of the policy concerning under insured motorists. Progressive did not pay the defense costs of the other driver out of goodwill. It was a clear conflict of interest and I hope they suffer severe consequences for selling out a customer.

 

[PPC1052]

Or Progressive thought that their in house attorneys could beat the attorney paid for by their policy holder's family. Not really a fair fight and they still lost.

Very good question. Who enforces insurance contracts in that state?

There is no inherint advantage that "in house" lawyers have over the plaintiff's attorneys. (At the end of the day, they certainly get paid much less than the Plaintiff's lawyers.) Generally, it will be the facts of the case, and how likeable the plaintiff is that determines the outcome at trial.

As far as who enforces the contracts? That would be the court system. Where this was filed. And where the insurance company has a right to defend itself, even if the jury ultimately disagrees.

There seems to be some confusion. If a third party negligently injures you, you sue that party, and not their insurance company for negligence. Most states prohibit such actions, which are called "third party actions" because the plaintiff is a potential third party beneficiary of the insurance contract between the tortfeasor and their insurance company. If you have a contractual benefit (for example, underinsured motorist benefits) you sue your insurance company directly under the contract. This is called a "first party action" because the plaintiff is a direct party to the insurance contract. There may be an arbitration clause that mandates a resolution by an arbitration panel. But absent that, you file suit directly against your own carrier. At that point, the insurance company is entitled to litigate the issue of whether they owe anything, including the factual issue of whether the other party was at fault. I suspect there is some misinformation here in this article, as the media are really bad about reporting the details of legal matters. I suspect the agrieved brother has the gist (that the company litigated the issue of fault) but not the specific procedural posture of the case.

Given the additional addendum above, it seems that the decedent's estate filed suit against the other driver (who was defended by his/her carrier) in tort and the decedent's estate also sued in the same action against the decedent's carrier on the contract. The defendant may have settled out, but the carrier still had a right to defend on the liability issue. When there are minimal limits, it is quite common for the carrier to settle, because they risk being sued for negligent claims handling by their own insured if they get whacked for an excess judgment. But that doesn't necessarily mean the claim is worth as much as the Plaintiff claims.

 

[PPC1052]

This would seem to explain it. If Progressive could show she was 1% at fault, then it would not have to pay.

This is an unfortunate effect of "tort reform".

This has nothing to do with tort reform. Contributory negligence is an archaic version of the common law. This is a left over relic, not a recent reform. We have contrib in our state, but only for claims against governmental entities. Governmental entities were not covered in the comparative fault act that covers your garden variety tort claims. Because they are not covered, the default negligence regime for governmental entities is the old contrib of the common law rather than the modern compartive fault.

Tort reform is more about caps on non-economic damages (pain and suffering type damges, and punitive damages) and loser pays cost shifting.

 

[Gary F]

There is no inherint advantage that "in house" lawyers have over the plaintiff's attorneys. (At the end of the day, they certainly get paid much less than the Plaintiff's lawyers.) Generally, it will be the facts of the case, and how likeable the plaintiff is that determines the outcome at trial.

As far as who enforces the contracts? That would be the court system. Where this was filed. And where the insurance company has a right to defend itself, even if the jury ultimately disagrees.

There seems to be some confusion. If a third party negligently injures you, you sue that party, and not their insurance company for negligence. Most states prohibit such actions, which are called "third party actions" because the plaintiff is a potential third party beneficiary of the insurance contract between the tortfeasor and their insurance company. If you have a contractual benefit (for example, underinsured motorist benefits) you sue your insurance company directly under the contract. This is called a "first party action" because the plaintiff is a direct party to the insurance contract. There may be an arbitration clause that mandates a resolution by an arbitration panel. But absent that, you file suit directly against your own carrier. At that point, the insurance company is entitled to litigate the issue of whether they owe anything, including the factual issue of whether the other party was at fault. I suspect there is some misinformation here in this article, as the media are really bad about reporting the details of legal matters. I suspect the agrieved brother has the gist (that the company litigated the issue of fault) but not the specific procedural posture of the case.

Given the additional addendum above, it seems that the decedent's estate filed suit against the other driver (who was defended by his/her carrier) in tort and the decedent's estate also sued in the same action against the decedent's carrier on the contract. The defendant may have settled out, but the carrier still had a right to defend on the liability issue. When there are minimal limits, it is quite common for the carrier to settle, because they risk being sued for negligent claims handling by their own insured if they get whacked for an excess judgment. But that doesn't necessarily mean the claim is worth as much as the Plaintiff claims.

All very nice but I still don't see why Progressive thought they should provide any defense to the person their policy holder sued for negligence. I thought I read that insurance companies can not be sued for breech of contract in Maryland. I know that a policyholder's insurance can't be sued for negligence committed by the policy holder. This is a common misconception. Some people believe that a medical malpractice case is against the physician's insurer and not the physician.

 

[PPC1052]

All very nice but I still don't see why Progressive thought they should provide any defense to the person their policy holder sued for negligence.

I am not sure that they did (I don't trust the sources. I would want to see the court file before I accepted that as true), or if they did, why they did so. But there could be lots of reasons peculiar to Maryland law. Nothing suggests though that they did anything out of the ordinary. In my state, there is a holding that found that the insurance company for the plaintiff was bound by the default judgment entered against an uninsured tortfeasor because they failed to take any action on behalf of the tortfeasor. As a result, by not appearing for the other driver, they lost the ability to litigate the fault issue. Maybe there is something similar in Maryland law that applies in this instance. We just don't know. (Any Marlyand attonerys on this board?)

I am not sure the source of all of the vitriol here in this thread. Is it possible that an adjuster took a hard line position on liability? Sure. I don't doubt that an adjuster could act unreasonably, and I don't condone such positions. But there is nothing about the procedural posture here to set off alarm bells, and we really don't know enough about the facts to know if the adjuster's position was unreasonable.

 

[Gary F]

I am not sure that they did (I don't trust the sources. I would want to see the court file before I accepted that as true), or if they did, why they did so. But there could be lots of reasons peculiar to Maryland law. Nothing suggests though that they did anything out of the ordinary. In my state, there is a holding that found that the insurance company for the plaintiff was bound by the default judgment entered against an uninsured tortfeasor because they failed to take any action on behalf of the tortfeasor. As a result, by not appearing for the other driver, they lost the ability to litigate the fault issue. Maybe there is something similar in Maryland law that applies in this instance. We just don't know. (Any Marlyand attonerys on this board?)

I am not sure the source of all of the vitriol here in this thread. Is it possible that an adjuster took a hard line position on liability? Sure. I don't doubt that an adjuster could act unreasonably, and I don't condone such positions. But there is nothing about the procedural posture here to set off alarm bells, and we really don't know enough about the facts to know if the adjuster's position was unreasonable.

OK. You have simultaneously impressed and confused me. I guess it all boils down to on how thorough and fair are the fact checkers at the Daily Mail. I have been reading it for a while and they tend to correlate well with the U.S. press if that is worth anything.

 

[zaitcev]

Or Progressive thought that their in house attorneys could beat the attorney paid for by their policy holder's family. Not really a fair fight and they still lost.

Actually, they won. And then, the greedy brother started to wage disgusting social media campaign to extract revenge.