4 ms·

>As it happens, the jury did find that the other driver was negligent, which, if justice or decency were priorities for Progressive, will result in them finally

by gte910h 14y ago

>As it happens, the jury did find that the other driver was negligent, which, if justice or decency were priorities for Progressive, will result in them finally honoring Katie’s policy. At this point, I hope you’ll forgive me if I wait for it to actually happen. Sounds like the guy wasn't at fault. So he shouldn't have been liable, and he shouldn't have paid, so the insurance company shouldn't have paid on his behalf. MattFisher even states: >Now, I don’t discount the possibility that Katie was at fault in the accident, but it never really looked that way. The only witness who gave a statement on the day said that Katie had the light, etc If you want life insurance, buy life insurance. Don't expect car insurance to be life insurance because you died in an auto collision, which was apparently no ones, or at least no one's conclusively fault. I'm sorry for the loss of the Sister in this story, but I don't think progressive is doing something massively evil here (And I'm unwaveringly pro-consumer in most cases). Also, flagging this, doesn't seem apropos to HN.

calvin 14y ago
If you have a policy with an insurance company, they should honor it rather than going out of their way to take advantage of a customer. That's the point here.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
"Sounds like the guy wasn't at fault." The jury disagreed, he was found negligent by a civil court. Being a civil court, this only means that he was "probably guilty". The crown prosecutors obviously thought he wasn't "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", otherwise he would have had criminal charges laid. What I don't understand is the underinsurance thing. Isn't it illegal to be underinsured while driving a vehicle? How can it even be possible to buy inadequate insurance? Driving a 2-ton piece of metal at very high speeds on anything other than a closed track is a very heavy responsibility that all too many take too lightly.

by gte910h 14y ago

calvin 14y ago

If you have a policy with an insurance company, they should honor it rather than going out of their way to take advantage of a customer. That's the point here.

bryanlarsen 14y ago

"Sounds like the guy wasn't at fault." The jury disagreed, he was found negligent by a civil court. Being a civil court, this only means that he was "probably guilty". The crown prosecutors obviously thought he wasn't "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", otherwise he would have had criminal charges laid. What I don't understand is the underinsurance thing. Isn't it illegal to be underinsured while driving a vehicle? How can it even be possible to buy inadequate insurance? Driving a 2-ton piece of metal at very high speeds on anything other than a closed track is a very heavy responsibility that all too many take too lightly.