They talked about this on the Glenn Beck show the other day.Apparently the brother of the victim works for Beck.Insurance companies lobby legislatures to keep liability rates low.In Pennsylvania,you only need $5,000 liability to get insurance.That will pay for very little today.So because we don't require drivers to have higher liabilty limits,the rest of us responsible people have to pay for uninsured or underinsured insurance.We also had a problem with Progressive.A few years ago a drunk driver hit our van and drove off.They found who it was and charged them with it and run.But she only had $10,000 liability.In PA,property damage comes before auto damage.Since the woman also took off the neighbors porch,Progressive refused to pay for my wife's van untill the porch was fixed.They also refused to pay for a rental vehicle because they said my wifes' van was driveable.Yes it was,but she couldn't open the drivers door which we thought was unsafe.So we paid to rent a car for 3 weeks.Eventually Progressive paid for 2 of the 3 weeks.
Yeah, about that Progressive story...we're dropping them ASAP because of this. It could be us next time & if customers don't vote with their feet, nothing will change. Any recommendations for other companies? Preliminary research shows AllState a good candidate. Thanks for the help.
I still just can't believe that a couple of previously unknown insurance companies come up with a talking lizard or a weird spokeswoman dressed in all white with a robot twin and put it on-line and TV commercials and people ran to buy their insurance from them.
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us".
Here is where threads like this go so very wrong. Read this statement from the article about this "victim":
"Here's the gist of the tragic story: Fisher's sister Katie died in a 2010 crash after another driver ran a red light. The driver was underinsured, and Fisher's family had to sue the driver for negligence in order to force Katie's insurance company, Progressive, to pay the difference."
There is no "gist" (what "difference" are they talking about?) except some red herring about a big bad insurance company (Progressive) allegedly doing something to a "loyal" customer's family after a tragic accident. It would be good to remember that "uninsured motorist" protection does not usually cover a death claim but only the cost of bodily injury when an insured is involved with an "at fault" uninsured driver.
Of course Progressive would have a very difficult time explaining adequately to the average person why they did not cover this loss (they weren't obligated to if what I think happened, happened), especially when a video goes viral on the internet. Millions of ignorant (relative to insurance coverages and settlements) howling citizens nipping at the heels probably forced this settlement. How do I know? Why reading this thread and seeing how these few uninformed posters automatically believe that Progressive was wrong without knowing the facts. Yes, automatic and then throw in some ad hominum attacks on the owner of Progessive, state incorrectly that insurance companies force states to lower minimum liability (kinda stupid since higher liability limits mean higher premium rates but, what the hey, it's Bush's fault--right?)and other assorted campfire chats that "prove" one of the most successful insurance companies in history is all a sham.
But since you and I will pay the increase premiums caused by this and similar internet driven initiatives to get insurance companies to pay claims they are not obligated to pay, what the hey, fair's fair, right?
chuckster11 wrote: Here is where threads like this go so very wrong. Read this statement from the article about this "victim":
"Here's the gist of the tragic story: Fisher's sister Katie died in a 2010 crash after another driver ran a red light. The driver was underinsured, and Fisher's family had to sue the driver for negligence in order to force Katie's insurance company, Progressive, to pay the difference."
There is no "gist" (what "difference" are they talking about?) except some red herring about a big bad insurance company (Progressive) allegedly doing something to a "loyal" customer's family after a tragic accident. It would be good to remember that "uninsured motorist" protection does not usually cover a death claim but only the cost of bodily injury when an insured is involved with an "at fault" uninsured driver.
Of course Progressive would have a very difficult time explaining adequately to the average person why they did not cover this loss (they weren't obligated to if what I think happened, happened), especially when a video goes viral on the internet. Millions of ignorant (relative to insurance coverages and settlements) howling citizens nipping at the heels probably forced this settlement. How do I know? Why reading this thread and seeing how these few uninformed posters automatically believe that Progressive was wrong without knowing the facts. Yes, automatic and then throw in some ad hominum attacks on the owner of Progessive, state incorrectly that insurance companies force states to lower minimum liability (kinda stupid since higher liability limits mean higher premium rates but, what the hey, it's Bush's fault--right?)and other assorted campfire chats that "prove" one of the most successful insurance companies in history is all a sham.
But since you and I will pay the increase premiums caused by this and similar internet driven initiatives to get insurance companies to pay claims they are not obligated to pay, what the hey, fair's fair, right?
Very good response. Important to note the articles mentioned the "States Law" requires a jury to place blame. Change the law in that state, and this case would have never happened! But your right, many here will not wish to understand. Seen these threads deleted over and over...
Something missed in many posts here - the 'at fault' party was not Uninsured but Under-insured. What is meant by under-insured often must be determined by a jury.
chuckster11 wrote: Here is where threads like this go so very wrong. Read this statement from the article about this "victim":
"Here's the gist of the tragic story: Fisher's sister Katie died in a 2010 crash after another driver ran a red light. The driver was underinsured, and Fisher's family had to sue the driver for negligence in order to force Katie's insurance company, Progressive, to pay the difference."
There is no "gist" (what "difference" are they talking about?) except some red herring about a big bad insurance company (Progressive) allegedly doing something to a "loyal" customer's family after a tragic accident. It would be good to remember that "uninsured motorist" protection does not usually cover a death claim but only the cost of bodily injury when an insured is involved with an "at fault" uninsured driver.
Of course Progressive would have a very difficult time explaining adequately to the average person why they did not cover this loss (they weren't obligated to if what I think happened, happened), especially when a video goes viral on the internet. Millions of ignorant (relative to insurance coverages and settlements) howling citizens nipping at the heels probably forced this settlement. How do I know? Why reading this thread and seeing how these few uninformed posters automatically believe that Progressive was wrong without knowing the facts. Yes, automatic and then throw in some ad hominum attacks on the owner of Progessive, state incorrectly that insurance companies force states to lower minimum liability (kinda stupid since higher liability limits mean higher premium rates but, what the hey, it's Bush's fault--right?)and other assorted campfire chats that "prove" one of the most successful insurance companies in history is all a sham.
But since you and I will pay the increase premiums caused by this and similar internet driven initiatives to get insurance companies to pay claims they are not obligated to pay, what the hey, fair's fair, right?
Now chuckster11 you know better than confuse a good propaganda post with the facts. Facts are no fun to talk about.
How a mouthy broad with a bad wig and heavy lipstick along with a Gecko end up being the mast head for the serious business of insurance is beyond me. I do not know if Progressive was right or wrong, but it looks smarmy. I think it is great that occasionally one of these Titans gets reigned in. It makes them all pay attention. As far as you having to pay more, you are going to any way, it is what it is, a for profit business. National statistics show accident rates and deaths have dramatically decreased in the U.S.. So where is the lower premium?
Offline
