Posted on 08/16/2006 3:40:41 AM PDT by Brilliant
Insurance is a contract.
Injustice would be making the insurer pay for something that wasn't in the contract.
You're one of those people who believe in injustice for the deepest pockets, aren't you?
Folks living in Florida obviously have it set up differently.
bttt
Arizona, like most states, has mandatory liability insurance for all vehicles registered in that state. While you or I may not agree that mandatory insurance is a good idea, the law is what it is.
Since the state has mandatory insurance, it is a reasonable expectation that the other driver would have insurance, which he did. Particularly considering, at least from the truck driver's perspective, it was an accident.
While I fully agree that the insurance company has every right in the world not to pay for the insured's damages, I think that relying upon a "suicide" clause to not pay for another person's damage. And here's another little trick (from the article):
But under that same auto-insurance policy, Progressive did pay a claim made by the two surviving Randall children.
Isn't that a hoot. Progressive's lawyer said,
Progressive attorney John Morrow said Randall's policy is clear. "No insurance company insures a suicide," Morrow told jurors. "No insurance company insures a murderer."
Yet they paid the claim for the surviving kids. (Since they were passenger's in the suicide car, it would make MORE sense for them not to be covered)
Well this may be legal, but not justice.
I am forced by law to pay for uninsured drivers.
Not allowing the suicidal to benefit from insurance makes total sense. Not allowing insurance to cover the injuries to others is a whole other thing.
Incidentally, wasn't the trucking firm insured? The truck driver?
There seems to be a lot missing from this story.
He was a fleet driver apparently....unless he fired himself..
"Does this mean he is entitled to unheard of compensation from the other insurance company?"
Unheard of compensation? Surely you don't think he is asking too much money. $100,000 is not alot when you consider his medical bills and 8 months of unemployment.
Now you sir are a compassionate conservative!
Correct. I canceled my motorcycle insurance with them and then changed insurance brokers when the idiots tried to use progressive for my RV insurance after I told them I did not want to fund the communist left via profits from progressive.
Any Freepers with progressive insurance should consider canceling and letting the broker know why.
For example, I don't pay a dime for it. People who are UNINSURED pay for it.
Interesting that if you fail to pay the "tax" in Nebraska and an uninsured motorist hits you, you get nothing. I'd suggest that your system was designed by lawyers who make money off uninsured motorists and drunks.
The trucker had uninsured motorist coverage, but since the other party was insured, the trucker's insurance coverage declined payment. The trucker also had collision insurance, but since the incident was evaluated as being 100% the other party's fault, the collsion insurance declined payment, saying it was the other party's responsibility.
That would be just as realistic as the assumption you're making.
I think this article is badly written and not telling the whole story. This may be a "double-dipping" claim.
I would think that suicide meant the policy holder not the person who hits you.
This means progressive will say EVERYTHING was a suicide. "no seatbelt?" IT WAS A SUICIDE therefore no payout.
Progressive is the worst company when it comes to being reasonable. Of course this jury is the one responsible for being so easily manipulated.
Gee Freepers are we having brain farts this morning or what? I agree with the ruling for the insurance company but where do you get off blaming the truck driver for not taking responsibility when he DID NOTHING WRONG?
It seems he was driving for a trucking firm as the article says they fired him so one might say the trucking company should have coverage for such occurrences and certainly he and the trucking company should sue the estate of the person who caused the damage.
If I drive a company vehicle am I expected to purchase additional coverage for myself?
Progressive must have a similar lawyer although his successful reinterpretation of liability in cases of suicide probably isn't going to last long.
After all, when the guy's SUV hit the truck he was not yet dead. 99% of the injury had been done by that time, and forces were already set in motion that would result in the trucker's unemployment.
Seems to me Progressive is liable until the instant their insured died, even if not after that time.
This Progressive defense lawyer must be a humdinger to work with when the group is splitting bills at the diner.
Sometimes known as the "illegal alien driver tax".
I am not hardcore. I believe this guy deserves some compensation.
My point is that whether or not the guy is laying back waiting for an insurance payment he was an innocent victim of an accident cause by the insurers client. he deserves to be compensated and his vehicle should be repaired or replaced.
Its BS insurance companies getting away with this crap and juries letting them get away with it.
All I'm gonna say is that since my accident a little over a year ago my back is getting worse and worse. The more serious the treatments the more I'm glad that I "lawyered-up" right away.
I only sit behind a desk most of my day and by the end of the day I'm praying to God that something at least cuts the pain in half for another decade or so. I can only imagine if this fellow has similar or worse injuries what it must feel like for him to even try to drive a truck all day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.