Re: Progressive Insurance refuses to pay claim and pays lawyer to defend the other dr
As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in between, but you have to work to get at it. The statement from Progressive's Web site is true, or at least about 95% of it. It's certainly not the whole truth. It obfuscates the fact that while Progressive is listed as a defendant under Maryland law, and downplays Progressive's role as a defendant, Progressive also acted as an active advocate on behalf of the defendant represented by Nationwide in order to try and prove the dead girl was at fault, in order to avoid paying on the policy.
Here is a statement from Progressive posted to their Web site on 8/14/12:
I’d like to take this opportunity to explain Progressive’s role in this complex case. First and foremost, our deepest sympathies go out to Kaitlynn Fisher’s family.
To be very clear, Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant in this case. He was defended by his insurance company, Nationwide.
There was a question as to who was at fault, and a jury decided in the Fisher family’s favor just last week. We respect the verdict and now can continue to work with the Fisher family to reach a resolution.
Chris Wolf
Claims General Manager
Progressive
Turns out, according to actual court records, that statement is a lie, as Progressive, in every way that matters, in de facto fashion, acted as the attorney for the defendant in the case. At most, Progressive can only distance themselves by claiming they were a co-defendant and acted in their own interests, but that's not what occurred during the trial
. Court documents clearly show that Progressive filed as an 'interested party' for the defense, and was 'allowed to intervene as a party defendant' on behalf of the defendant, and 'granted all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case.' Which means they not only assisted the defense, but acted as if they were the defense.
Today, in response to my blog post entitled “My Sister Paid Progressive Insurance to Defend Her Killer In Court,” Progressive released a statement saying that ”Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant” in my sister’s case. I am not a lawyer, but this is what I observed in the courtroom during my sister’s trial:
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 all of 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. I wrote about this case on my blog because I felt that, in the wake of my sister’s death, Progressive had sought out ways to meet their strict legal obligation while still disrespecting my sister’s memory and causing my family a world of hurt. Their statement disavowing their role in this case, a case in which their attorney stood before my sister’s jury and argued on behalf of her killer, is simply infuriating.
Posted on 8/14/2012 at 10:57 PM by Charlemagne Boesh
To add... for an interesting view on what you'll find at the intersection of social media, consumer frustration, anxious lawyers and heavy-handed regulations, click this:
Lessons from Progressive screw-up: When it's Twitter vs. lawyers, take Twitter - Red Tape
