Progressive Insurance defends client's killer - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-22-2012, 02:46 PM   #21
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_G View Post
You confuse the words "often" with "many". Few people can do something "often" without being "many". There is a distinct difference. Do I believe that Christians are severly harmed by discrimination? No. Have I heard many people, especially young people, who are not of the Christian faith openly discriminate against Christians? Yes, atleast once a week. I am not even religious myself but discrimination comes in many forms and in varying degrees. Everyone discriminates including myself. The point of the post was that certain forms of discrimination or not openly accepted while others are.
My advice? Put on your big boy pants and get over it. The majority of the discrimination stories are heavily exaggerated, with a surprising amount being made out of whole cloth. See: Not being able to pray in schools or not being able to say Jesus in a public school.

Check out the discrimination the Muslim's face in this country if you want to see something to actually complain about. Seriously, we have states making laws banning Muslim practices. The difference between "Young people openly discriminating" (Yeah, what did they do exactly? Refuse to buy at Chic-Fil-A? ) and entire states openly banning religious practices is enormous.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 02:51 PM   #22
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,885
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

well, to be fair, you cant use religion as a front for training terrorists.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 02:51 PM   #23
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Ryan_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 2,579
Total Cats: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
My advice? Put on your big boy pants and get over it. The majority of the discrimination stories are heavily exaggerated, with a surprising amount being made out of whole cloth. See: Not being able to pray in schools or not being able to say Jesus in a public school.

Check out the discrimination the Muslim's face in this country if you want to see something to actually complain about. Seriously, we have states making laws banning Muslim practices. The difference between "Young people openly discriminating" (Yeah, what did they do exactly? Refuse to buy at Chic-Fil-A? ) and entire states openly banning religious practices is enormous.
Obvious troll is obvious.

You keep trying to argue something that was not even the point being made. I am in no way upset or even concerned about discrimination against Christians. I am not religious and really don't give a **** either way. I am not even stating that discrimination against Christians is growing or is in anyway harmful. I was making a point by using a previous example. I have no idea what you are trying to achieve but you are so far off topic.

P.S. discrimination is discrimination no matter how small or insignificant it may be and is a perfectly legitimate reason to not support a business.
Ryan_G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 02:54 PM   #24
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
well, to be fair, you cant use religion as a front for training terrorists.
We'd better ban Christianity then, considering it's the leading cause of terrorism in the US to date. (See: Church bombings, abortion clinic bombings, abortion clinic assassinations, even ******* McVeigh was Christian)

blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 02:56 PM   #25
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,885
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
We'd better ban Christianity then, considering it's the leading cause of terrorism in the US to date. (See: Church bombings, abortion clinic bombings, abortion clinic assassinations, even ******* McVeigh was Christian)

cool story. logic doesnt fit.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 02:59 PM   #26
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
cool story. logic doesnt fit.
Brainy: You can't use religion as a front for training terrorists
Me: Well, the leading cause of terrorism in the US is Christianity
Brainy: That's unpossible.

Seriously Brainy, you can't use the terrorism argument when it comes to US soil. Especially not when trying to use the religious extremism (See: Terrorism) argument. Arguing (Or, in your case implying) that extremist outliers are a reason to ban or do anything means bad results for Christianity here.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:02 PM   #27
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,885
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

you're too jaded to understand.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:14 PM   #28
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

blaen's right -- I remember how I and all my fellow Christians crowded into the streets and cheered and rioted for hours when al-Zarqawi was killed. We had signs printed up and everything. The effigy-burning was my favorite part of the Christian riots. Islam and Christianity are 100% analogues and there's no important distinctions to be made between them.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:15 PM   #29
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
you're too jaded to understand.
Did you say....jaded?

blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 03:15 PM   #30
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,885
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
blaen's right -- I remember how I and all my fellow Christians crowded into the streets and cheered and rioted for hours when al-Zarqawi was killed. We had signs printed up and everything. The effigy-burning was my favorite part of the Christian riots. Islam and Christianity are 100% analogues and there's no important distinctions to be made between them.
Thank you for understanding.

Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 04:02 PM   #31
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,324
Total Cats: 1,922
Default

I should have known i'd have been misinterpreted there. I was trying to be brief, as typing lengthy responses on this phone frustrates me.

By "bad" and "worse" , I did not mean "discrimininating against black irish jews is bad, and discriminating agaist Christians is worse." Companies can discriminate against whoever they want for all I care- even those damn dirty hispanics.

What I mean was "if you change your consumer spending habits solely on the basis that some company's founder claims to be pro-skub or anti-skub, then you are an idiot and you are harming only yourself." (eg: it is bad for you, the person doing the boycotting.)

Frankly, I don't care if the owners of the gas station across the street from me worship Satan and contribute 20% of their profits to directly fund late-term abortions for 16 year old girls without parental consent. None of those things affect me, so long as they continue to charge 5 cents less per gallon than the other gas station, they will continue to get my business.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 04:16 PM   #32
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Longs, SC
Posts: 2,583
Total Cats: 13
Default

So moral of the story is "Be the uninsured driver, and get free representation"?
icantthink4155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 04:17 PM   #33
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
What I mean was "if you change your consumer spending habits solely on the basis that some company's founder claims to be pro-skub or anti-skub, then you are an idiot and you are harming only yourself." (eg: it is bad for you, the person doing the boycotting.)

Frankly, I don't care if the owners of the gas station across the street from me worship Satan and contribute 20% of their profits to directly fund late-term abortions for 16 year old girls without parental consent. None of those things affect me, so long as they continue to charge 5 cents less per gallon than the other gas station, they will continue to get my business.
I think you were understood; the discussion drifted later, but I think several people (including myself) are disagreeing with exactly what you're saying above.

Evaluating purchasing decisions by a criterion other than (or in addition to) price doesn't make one an idiot, so long as one believes the personal benefit gained by using that other criterion offsets the financial loss incurred by the less advantageous prices.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2012, 04:20 PM   #34
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,885
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
None of those things affect me, so long as they continue to charge 5 cents less per gallon than the other gas station, they will continue to get my business.
Certainly. it's a personal choice. I won't buy Geico Insurance because they dontate heavily to law inforcement and give out free radars/lasers so cops can give more speeding tickets and thus raise rates. That would effect me. They are also anti radar-detectors, but this does not effect me; my state is an odd-ball and has outlawed them.

Our cops have it easy in VA.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2012, 05:01 PM   #35
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,324
Total Cats: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
No, I have plently of other options for insurance and can choose how I damn well please, not how someone else decides I should pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
I can not disagree more.

It is up to the purchaser do decide which company offers the best value for their hard earned dollars.
Ok, I'll grant you that I overstepped on this. Personally, I tend to make financial decisions based on what makes sense financially, but if you feel that you can influence corporate policy by choosing whom you will do business with based on their political or religious points of view, then this is entirely your prerogative.





Quote:
Originally Posted by pdexta View Post
What I don't get is, if Progressive had "won" the case and been able to convince the jury that their customer WAS at fault, wouldn't they have owed the customer's family the entire amount of the policy rather than just the difference in what the underinsured customer's insurance paid? It seems like it would make more sense to want your customer to not be at fault.
Consider for a moment what your auto insurance covers. If you look at your policy, you will see a number of different categories. The most basic, mandatory coverages are:

Bodily Injury Liability. This means that if you hit someone else and cause them injury or death, and you are found to be at fault, your insurance will pay for that person's medical costs, lost wages, pain & suffering, etc.

Property Damage Liability. As above, this coverage pays for damage caused to the property of others caused by a wreck in which you are at fault. This would include not just hitting someone else's car, but driving through the front wall of their home, running over their prize-winning dog, etc.

Both of the above are not limitless- they will pay for damages only up to a certain dollar value, and this limit can be selected by you, the insured. Higher limits mean slightly higher premiums, but are not without value. If you have a Property Damage Liability limit of $10,000 and you crash into somebody's brand new Ferrari 458, your insurance will pay $10,000 and you'll be left on the hook for the remaining $220,000.

The same goes for Bodily Injury- if I put somebody in the hospital and they rack up $300,000 in medical bills (this isn't as outrageous as you might think), I'd better hope that my Bodily Injury Liability limit is at least $300,000, or else the court is going to be seizing my assets. Thus, people who have a large quantity of assets (house, money in the bank, etc) tend to buy insurance with large liability limits.


Of course, some people like Pusha have no assets at all, and are already in debt up to their eyeballs in order to pay for the appearance of a lavish lifestyle. They couldn't care less about an extra 300 grand in judgement against them- it'll just make the bankruptcy filing all that sweeter. If Pusha were to hit me with his little shitbox and put me in the hospital to the tune of $300,000, I'd be pretty screwed. Well, not screwed exactly. I'm rich enough that I can cover that out of pocket, but it would REALLY **** me off. A normal person who doesn't have an extra $300,000 lying around, however, would be screwed


Which is why I elect to carry:

Uninsured / Underinsured Motorist Coverage.

This is the coverage at issue here. If Pushy hits me and I wind up with a huge medical bill, I'll have no problems because I have Uninsured / Underinsured Coverage. So even if some cockbag with no insurance at all (or insurance with too low of a liability limit) crashes into me, my insurance will cover the costs even though it's the other guy's fault.


And that's the issue here.


The Pretty White Girl had Uninsured / Underinsured motorist coverage, and the guy who hit her was in fact underinsured. So if it turns out that he is at fault, Geico will have to pony up the policy limit to PWG's family to cover the difference between actual expenses and whatever inadequate amount of insurance the other guy had.

However, if the accident turned out to be PWG's fault, then Geico doesn't have to pay anything. Nothing in her policy pays for HER OWN medical costs / lost wages / etc which are caused by an accident which is HER fault- that's what health insurance and life insurance are for. (And no, this isn't unique to Geico- that's how auto insurance in the US normally works.)
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 02:07 AM   #36
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
From the tone of the posting, one would think he believes that Progressive is somehow unique in this way, or that they should be forking over money to the family rather than protcting their own financial interests.

This is exactly how corporations are supposed to behave in the absence of strong regulation and governental oversight.
Hmm, seems to me a major issue here is that, from the original link:

Quote:
In Maryland, you may not sue an insurance company when they refuse to fork over your money.
Sounds like, gov't protecting said corporations.

Quote:
If you're letting emotion and religion influence your purchasing decisions, then you're not acting in your own best interest, and breaking capitalism.
??? "Breaking capitalism"? Every customer can choose where to spend his money, for any reason. I spend a bit extra for a gas station across the street because they actually have windshield cleaners.

This Progressive fuckup is gonna make them lose customers. The lawyers made the company lose way more money than they save with this stupidity. That's the beauty of Capitalism. People vote with their wallets. Do you think whenever the gov't, a city gov't or whatever, does something odious like this, there is any form or retribution like customers taking their business elsewhere?
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 02:51 AM   #37
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Hmm, seems to me a major issue here is that, from the original link:



Sounds like, gov't protecting said corporations.
Considering you posted the original article, I don't mind being a bit harsh on you about this Jason. You are substantially distorting what was said, let me quote the full text of which destroys your argument:

Quote:
In Maryland, you may not sue an insurance company when they refuse to fork over your money. Instead, what they had to do was sue the guy who killed my sister, establish his negligence in court, and then leverage that decision to force Progressive to pay the policy.
The distasteful part for me is that you have forced me to defend a position I don't like to defend. But it makes no legal sense to sue Progressive when Progressive was not the negligent driver.

Let's say you run a red light and t-bone Brainy's fictional sister, Jason. So, Brainy goes to sue her insurance company (Progressive). But wait, Progressive didn't do it. You did.

Now, on the other hand, if Brainy sues you and your insurance company, and you are found to have killed his fictional sister, then Progressive is irrevocably on the hook for the policy assuming you are underinsured and all the facts in the story are identical.

What is so disgusting to me isn't Progressive's actions here - this is common insurance law. In fact, this is simple and basic US law - you sue the person who is either directly or indirectly responsible, not a third party with no culpability*. This has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of government protection beyond what our legal system is based on. The disgusting part is Progressive paid a lawyer to defend the guy who killed their client. Up to that point, everything is fairly cut and dried legally and you see it regularly in insurance proceedings - but that part? Yeah, that's the part where they abandon all common decency. And then the actions they took after to cover their ***? Oh, it only keeps getting worse.

(Edit) *: This makes the notable assumption that Progressive is not insuring you in my example, and that Progressive is not involved in operation of the vehicle that you hit Brainy's fictional sister with. If Progressive has no connection whatsoever with you or your vehicle, then they are a third party with no culpability.

Last edited by blaen99; 08-25-2012 at 03:27 AM.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 06:00 AM   #38
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 56
Total Cats: 3
Default

What I find astounding is that no one in the loop at Progressive connected with the odds that this would turn inn to a **** storm for them. Then again they might just be counting on the goldfish memories of the common consumer.

But this sort off behavior is on par for norwegian insurance companies to.

Tommy
PiazzaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 10:42 PM   #39
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,324
Total Cats: 1,922
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
??? "Breaking capitalism"? Every customer can choose where to spend his money, for any reason. I spend a bit extra for a gas station across the street because they actually have windshield cleaners.
Yes, I overstepped here. And you'll note (from reading post #35 above) that I have recanted that statement in the face of cogent arguments put forth by Braineack and Ben.



Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
Sounds like, gov't protecting said corporations.
blaen99 has already explained in a satisfactory manner why this is not actually the case.

To that, I will add that you seem to be engaging in a similar logical fallacy to that of the fellow who wrote the original article. His entire argument is predicated on the assumption that activity such as described is somehow unique to Progressive, ignoring the fact that it is standard practice within the insurance industry.

Likewise, you seem to presuppose that laws such as the one you are referring to above are unique to Maryland, and are furthermore somehow unfair or unjust. None of these facts are in evidence.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2012, 11:36 PM   #40
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,673
Total Cats: 1,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
You are substantially distorting what was said,
Pot, meet kettle. lol.
sixshooter is online now   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
elesjuan's mediocre 95 Miata adventure (google fiber edition) elesjuan Build Threads 8 02-16-2016 09:36 PM
Please school me on life insurance... samnavy Insert BS here 14 10-11-2015 12:21 AM
Koni 1150 Coilover Kit drumman83 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 2 09-25-2015 08:03 PM
Replacing one tire nigelt Wheels and Tires 7 09-22-2015 01:32 PM
SOLD-Rear knuckle/spindle upper spherical bearing adapter hi_im_sean Miata parts for sale/trade 1 09-16-2015 01:45 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:23 PM.