GL1800Riders Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is there something in your insurance policy that stipulates that your carrier isn't responsible when someone intentionally collides with you?

The Orlando Sentinel described how Progressive denied a claim because an SUV driver intentionally drove into the path of a tractor-trailer driver in Interstate 4. Progressive denied the claim from the trucker since the SUV driver was committing suicide and killing two of his four children. Progressive said or implied that it wasn't an "accident" because the SUV driver did it on purpose.

The tractor-trailer driver was injured, requiring therapy and was unable to continue his job. He sued Progressive for his medical costs and a Florida jury sided with Progressive. Then Progressive sued the truck driver for $20,000 to cover their legal costs.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/loc ... 2597.story

I realize that insurance companies look for loopholes to avoid paying claims but I think that Progressive carried it too far on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,768 Posts
He ought to be suing his employer.. And filing workman's comp.. His emplyer's insurance ought to be covering him regardless of the lunatic.

Yet another reason to avoid giving Progressive a dime. The guy wasn't colluding with the truck driver to committ fraud, he was trying to kill himself, an insane act in and of itself. Another reason not to live in Frolida..
 

·
Road Warrior
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Hubby was driving my car and had a drunk lady hit him and then ran.
He followed her and called the cops at the same time. She had progressive and they paid the claim but would not use original GM parts because even though the car was less than 2 years old it had over 36,000 miles. Now I buy GM because that is what I want. Both my Husband and I work for GM, both of our Fathers are retired GM and we have many other family and friends that work for or are retired from GM. I will never have progressive for anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
Every Insurance company does this. Technically it is not an accident and I don't know of any insurance company that will pay for this type of claim. We deal with this issue from time to time but not really all that often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,035 Posts
The uninsured/underinsured policy of the trucker should cover the trucking company and the driver. Then again, it is likely that insurance company that was actually bringing the suit and will have to pay the legal defense expenses of Progressive.

prs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,012 Posts
It would seem that the trucker should be able to have his injuries seen to by workman's comp. He isn't going to get rich but at least his medical bills would be paid for. Unless he was an owner/operator. Then his insurance company should foot the medical bills along with damage to the truck providing he had coverage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Isn't Florida one of those no fault states? In Oklahoma this would not have happened. I think FL is one of those states that wanted to get the lawyers out of court and passed some kind of 'no fault'...I may be entirely wrong.

When you let the insurance companies write the laws this is some of the crazy results you get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
rhino678 said:
When you let the insurance companies write the laws this is some of the crazy results you get.
Insurance companies don't write the laws, politicians (mostly lawyers) do. Insurance companies try to write policies that conform to the laws of the states. Lawyers then sue them over tiny little loopholes, and insurance companies then pay for all sorts of stuff that isn't covered in the policy and that they didn't charge premiums for.
If insurance companies wrote the laws, your rates might be lower and the fraud would be a lot less of an expense than it is now. Like most things, the insurance industry would be lots better off if there were fewer lawyers.
Just a view from the other side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingNero

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Every Auto and Homeowner Liability policy I've see has an exclusion for intentional acts. It's just not Progressive. I always tell people "if you are going after a golfing partner with a club, make sure you do it while hitting a golf ball. That way it could be called an accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
hjh said:
Every Auto and Homeowner Liability policy I've see has an exclusion for intentional acts.
Yep... they're in business to cover their butts. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hubby was driving my car and had a drunk lady hit him and then ran.
He followed her and called the cops at the same time. She had progressive and they paid the claim but would not use original GM parts because even though the car was less than 2 years old it had over 36,000 miles. Now I buy GM because that is what I want. Both my Husband and I work for GM, both of our Fathers are retired GM and we have many other family and friends that work for or are retired from GM. I will never have progressive for anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
You should have your insurance fix the vehicle than have them sue the other company for the money. Your insurance is going to go u regardless..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Most likely the truck driver is an independent driver/owner or "leases" the truck from the company he drives for or some other form of contract driver. Not everyone is "employed" directly by a big company with benefits.
My parents were run over by a merging semi-truck/trailer. While the tractor and trailer were owned by a national company, the driver was not even a US citizen, supposedly didn't speak much English and had no full coverage insurance (apparently it wasn't "required" in the state that he was licensed in). Parents insurance had to cover the damages and were told they could sue the driver personally to try to recover the loss, but of course, that would have been futile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Insurance companies don't write the laws, politicians (mostly lawyers) do. Insurance companies try to write policies that conform to the laws of the states. Lawyers then sue them over tiny little loopholes, and insurance companies then pay for all sorts of stuff that isn't covered in the policy and that they didn't charge premiums for.
If insurance companies wrote the laws, your rates might be lower and the fraud would be a lot less of an expense than it is now. Like most things, the insurance industry would be lots better off if there were fewer lawyers.
Just a view from the other side.
According to OpenSecrects.org, there are no fewer than 897 Insurance Lobbyists and is 2014 alone, they spent $154 Million dollars on lobbying efforts to both political parties. While insurance companies might not be the ones actually writing the laws (sometimes they write the bills to be submitted though), youre sadly mistaken
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Insurance companies play the odds. How many times do you ride down the road before you are in an accident. And one must use their definition of an accident. The cheaper the insurance, the narrower the definition of an accident and what is covered. Read the policies before you buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,852 Posts
Maybe so, but the lawyer joke is still funny... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Walrus

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,881 Posts
14 year old thread!
Yeah, what's happening is people are reading the "Recommended Reading" threads at the bottom of other threads and responding to them, not realizing how old they are... a flaw in this forum's programming. The modulators need to have it fixed. The program is pulling suggested reading from other threads disregarding how old the threads are.

If you look up some of the names above, many have not been on this board since 2011... rchrugg responded to Anutt and Anutt hasn't been on this board since 2015... people don't know that unless you really look at the age of the posts, and the person's account.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,403 Posts
Yeah, what's happening is people are reading the "Recommended Reading" threads at the bottom of other threads and responding to them, not realizing how old they are... a flaw in this forum's programming. The modulators need to have it fixed. The program is pulling suggested reading from other threads disregarding how old the threads are.
No, it's generating traffic. It's by design - page views, likes and responses.

Forum software is working exactly as VS intends it to work.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top