*law

Was just reading about this yesterday, I hope it balloons into a major PR problem for Progressive.

Matt Fisher's original tumblr rant: http://mattfisher.tumblr.com/post/29338478278/my-sister-paid-progressive-insurance-to-defend-her

Me too. Ever since Fight Club we've all known that insurance companies make for horrible "people", and hopefully there will be enough fallout from this that they will decide on their own to stop being such bad citizens.>> ^KnivesOut:

Was just reading about this yesterday, I hope it balloons into a major PR problem for Progressive.

Trying to be fair.
The person who began Progressive Insurance may not even have been aware of this until now. The machine is evil, but the person may not be (possibly--maybe).

Article I read said the guy who ran into his sister was underinsured, not uninsured.

And another said Maryland law says that if you are even partly at fault for the accident, you don't get any money from lawsuits because of it. You have to be 0% at fault to get money. It was kind of unclear, but apparently Maryland law is odd in that way. It seemed like they couldn't sue Progressive under this law until they proved that she was 0% at fault, so instead they had to sue the other driver to prove she wasn't at fault and that he was. Then use that ruling to make Progressive pay out, something like that.

And that's where Progressive was supposed to defending the guy who killed his sister, but again this was unclear because it sounded like they named both the guy and Progressive in the lawsuit. Progressive said they didn't defend the guy, but his own insurance company did....and perhaps Progressive was just on that side because they were named in the lawsuit with him.

Was kind of confusing to me, admittedly I didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure it out. Underinsured drivers are bullshit.....paying to be protected from the liability they cause shouldn't even be up for debate in this discussion. She paid for a service and they should be providing that service to her estate.

Fair comment on all points.

Frankly, I don't care if the whole thing was justified. Human people becoming aware of how corporate people in general, and insurance companies in particular, treat human people can only be a good thing.>> ^Porksandwich:

Article I read said the guy who ran into his sister was underinsured, not uninsured.
And another said Maryland law says that if you are even partly at fault for the accident, you don't get any money from lawsuits because of it. You have to be 0% at fault to get money. It was kind of unclear, but apparently Maryland law is odd in that way. It seemed like they couldn't sue Progressive under this law until they proved that she was 0% at fault, so instead they had to sue the other driver to prove she wasn't at fault and that he was. Then use that ruling to make Progressive pay out, something like that.
And that's where Progressive was supposed to defending the guy who killed his sister, but again this was unclear because it sounded like they named both the guy and Progressive in the lawsuit. Progressive said they didn't defend the guy, but his own insurance company did....and perhaps Progressive was just on that side because they were named in the lawsuit with him.
Was kind of confusing to me, admittedly I didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to figure it out. Underinsured drivers are bullshit.....paying to be protected from the liability they cause shouldn't even be up for debate in this discussion. She paid for a service and they should be providing that service to her estate.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Was just reading about this yesterday, I hope it balloons into a major PR problem for Progressive.


They won't give a shit.
Even if every human being involved is horrified - it cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and absolutely WILL NOT STOP.. At least not for a second longer than it needs to to minimise expenditure.

This is an equation - that's old granny smiths pension money running this place and who the fuck are you to say the letter of the law is insufficient regulation?? YOU'RE FIRED!

From Fight Club, 'Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.'
I guess Progressive didn't do their math?

Isn't this a conflict of interest?

Good for them.

Nice to see the man doing what the man does the best.

Fuck you over ruthlessly.

Good to know my view on things has not been molested.

We need a Batman that doesn't have reservations on murder. Fuck it, hire the Joker.

You're right that they're bloodsuckers and always will be. However, when the public votes with their dollars, corporate behaviour changes very quickly, and those who don't get left in the dust. Remember in the late 80s when manufacturers suddenly started making environmentally friendly products even though the profit margins were less? That was a response to public awareness of environmental damage. People voted with their dollars. The market responded, and now almost every product has some kind of environmental symbol or even a rating. All that is necessary for change to come to the insurance industry is for one neutral watchdog group to monitor this kind of behaviour and publish inhuman ratings for each company. It will then become a default resource for information while selecting an insurance company like the Energuide in Canada, which rates how energy efficient appliances are and greatly affects purchasing behaviour.>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^KnivesOut:
Was just reading about this yesterday, I hope it balloons into a major PR problem for Progressive.

They won't give a shit.
Even if every human being involved is horrified - it cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and absolutely WILL NOT STOP.. At least not for a second longer than it needs to to minimise expenditure.
This is an equation - that's old granny smiths pension money running this place and who the fuck are you to say the letter of the law is insufficient regulation?? YOU'RE FIRED!

They kinda did. They know that if they always defend their clients' killers, sometimes they'll defeat their families, and the savings on average will outweigh the legal costs. They probably only have to win 1 in 50 such cases. Now, maybe, they'll also factor in the negative publicity costs.>> ^ambassdor:

From Fight Club, 'Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.'
I guess Progressive didn't do their math?

>> ^messenger:

You're right that they're bloodsuckers and always will be. However, when the public votes with their dollars, corporate behaviour changes very quickly, and those who don't get left in the dust. Remember in the late 80s when manufacturers suddenly started making environmentally friendly products even though the profit margins were less? That was a response to public awareness of environmental damage. People voted with their dollars. The market responded, and now almost every product has some kind of environmental symbol or even a rating. All that is necessary for change to come to the insurance industry is for one neutral watchdog group to monitor this kind of behaviour and publish inhuman ratings for each company. It will then become a default resource for information while selecting an insurance company like the Energuide in Canada, which rates how energy efficient appliances are and greatly affects purchasing behaviour.>> ^cosmovitelli:
>> ^KnivesOut:
Was just reading about this yesterday, I hope it balloons into a major PR problem for Progressive.

They won't give a shit.
Even if every human being involved is horrified - it cannot be reasoned with, cannot be bargained with, and absolutely WILL NOT STOP.. At least not for a second longer than it needs to to minimise expenditure.
This is an equation - that's old granny smiths pension money running this place and who the fuck are you to say the letter of the law is insufficient regulation?? YOU'RE FIRED!



You're relying on the interest and attention of the public to outmanoeuvre the machine. Never seems to work in the long run.

Especially when your elected representatives are working for the other side.

The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-20120816,0,5322264.story

Not quite. I'd say I'm counting on public pressure to meaningfully reduce this kind of bad behaviour in the insurance industry. Without the public's attention, there's a lot of bad stuff that would be happening unchecked, but now isn't. This was a trick up the insurance companies' sleeve, and now it isn't. That's better.>> ^cosmovitelli:
You're relying on the interest and attention of the public to outmanoeuvre the machine. Never seems to work in the long run.
Especially when your elected representatives are working for the other side.

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:



"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.

I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "

>> ^entr0py:

The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



The front page of Fisher's blog has a screen cap, and a link to the official case record.

Aside from being listed as: "Interested party, type: Mediator." The record also contains this gem:

"It is this 19th day of May, 2011, by the Circuit Court For Baltimore City, hereby ORDERED1. That Progressive Advance Insurance Company be and is hereby allowed to intervene as a party Defendant.2. That Progressive Insurance Company is GRANTED all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case."

>> ^vaire2ube:

Aye but the guy did say the Progressive lawyer in the courtroom did more than give a little assistance:

"At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
I am comfortable characterizing this as a legal defense. "
>> ^entr0py:
The good news is the Fisher family won the case regardless. There were also a few factual errors in TYTs reporting, as porksandwich mentioned the other driver had insurance which had already paid out to it's maximum, and progressive didn't represent him legally. But what they actually did do was bad enough to deserve the condemnation; a progressive lawyer contacted the defendant's lawyer and gave him assistance, so they could ultimately avoid liability.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-progressive-campaign-
20120816,0,5322264.story



I admit I didn't read the blog on account of the short attention span. But yeah it's fucked up. I would have thought defense attorneys would have to do most of that work to earn their standing, apparently not.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Trying to be fair.
The person who began Progressive Insurance may not even have been aware of this until now. The machine is evil, but the person may not be (possibly--maybe).

Isn't this pretty much the problem though. Who makes the machine, and is it evil or just soulless? Seems to be a proxy through which accountability of actions is lost completely.

Perhaps a PR disaster really is the best way to fight the "machine" in the only language it'll ever understand - profit.

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Trying to be fair.
The person who began Progressive Insurance may not even have been aware of this until now. The machine is evil, but the person may not be (possibly--maybe).

Isn't this pretty much the problem though. Who makes the machine, and is it evil or just soulless? Seems to be a proxy through which accountability of actions is lost completely.
Perhaps a PR disaster really is the best way to fight the "machine" in the only language it'll ever understand - profit.


I think the line is 'just following orders'.

In my (fantasy world) opinion, the machines have already taken over and we're in the midst of a slow genocide, because time is not a barrier in a system built to take as long as possible before a pattern can be verified. Minimize our rights, blur the line between what defines a person, allow time for acclimation, make it difficult not to break laws and/or policies to minimize as many opinions as possible, if someone begins falling outside that system attach a constructed sexual assault case to their name and extradite; slowly lower the impact human death has on our collective conscience, and THEN murder all humans with a number of doomsday machine scenarios. Or just depress them until their birthrate dwindles to near nothing and sterilize the surviving populace.

That's how Terminator should have played out. A loose conspiracy with no human names or communication outside of encrypted messages sent between machines. Money trails lead to people on opposing party lines because the entire democratic process is orchestrated.

I'm going to go kill myself to speed this along. GG, machines, GG.