Can you believe this???

[CharlesTD]

I would be seriously PO'd if that happened to me or somone from my family.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002560033_danny14.html

 

[ChrisnSteph]

OMG! I cannot even believe that. But yet, then I can.

 

[luvmydogs]

I cannot believe that Farmer's Insurance will not do the decent, humane thing and pay this poor woman's bills. Then again--just like ChrisnSteph--yes, I can.

Unbelieveable.

 

[bunnyfoo]

Wow! I'm speechless...

 

[hiwaygal]

I guess having been in an accident, and having an insurance company deny my claims. and being just naturally a little cynical, I can believe it.

It's sad, really sad, just like that lady said, you pay a company loads of money to protect you when something like this happens, and then they leave you...

It would be nice to think the insurance company would make things right for this lady, but I don't think they will...I would LOVE to be proven wrong on this one...

 

[Stitchfans]

This is unbelieveable! I am so glad I don't have that insurance. That is so wrong!

 

[alliecats]

It's SUCH bad PR. It's a PR nightmare! Do they think their other clients are going to stick with them when they hear how unreliable they are? No. If I had that insurance I would change it after reading that story. Not just because they are turds who don't deserve my business, but because I won't be able to count on them.
I bet they will get calls & letters. But the damage is done. Being forced into doing the right thing is not good for PR either.

 

[Planogirl]

That is unbelievable! I guess that motorists are supposed to somehow dodge people who have been pushed into them by a wacko?

 

[CharlesTD]

That would never happen up here the insurance company would be paying immediatley for this claim I know I work for an insurance company and that just wouldn't fly up here.

 

[ericamanda01]

That's outragous! I hope she sues and gets so much money they fold!

 

[MsDisney23]

Unreal!

 

[bicker]

An insurance company that engages in unrestrained neglect of the tenets of the policies it issues shouldn't be in business. If they don't pay when they should, they're committing fraud on their customers. If they do pay when they shouldn't, they're committing fraud on their investors. They can be as compassionate as they wish, being as helpful and courteous as they wish, but if they pay a claim that they shouldn't as per the policy's terms and conditions, then they're doing wrong.

This is the key point here:

Dinning said what happened to Adams is "very unfortunate," but "the law is the law unless the Legislature wants to change it."
​

And that's what should happen. Judges, or the court of public opinion, shouldn't address individual inequities, because there isn't enough bandwidth in these systems to address all inequities fairly and equally that way. Rather, the system itself must be fixed, so we need not hope for the random chance that the bench or the mob will deign to concern itself sufficiently about these types of seemingly unfair situations.

 

[CharlesTD]

An insurance company that engages in unrestrained neglect of the tenets of the policies it issues shouldn't be in business. If they don't pay when they should, they're committing fraud on their customers. If they do pay when they shouldn't, they're committing fraud on their investors. They can be as compassionate as they wish, being as helpful and courteous as they wish, but if they pay a claim that they shouldn't as per the policy's terms and conditions, then they're doing wrong.

This is the key point here:

Dinning said what happened to Adams is "very unfortunate," but "the law is the law unless the Legislature wants to change it."
​

And that's what should happen. Judges, or the court of public opinion, shouldn't address individual inequities, because there isn't enough bandwidth in these systems to address all inequities fairly and equally that way. Rather, the system itself must be fixed, so we need not hope for the random chance that the bench or the mob will deign to concern itself sufficiently about these types of seemingly unfair situations.

As true as this may be she was involved in an accident she was not a participant in teh road rage she was not involved in that incident if they were not going to pay it would have to be him not being paid not this poor lady that was run over by somone who was forcefully being pushed into her path that IMHO is just wrong regardless of what the law says. I am glad my coverage isn't limited like this up here an accident is an accident even in this type of situation.

 

[bicker]

It's not "wrong" if, as you said, the coverage is "limited like" that. As you say, the law should define what is and is not an accident, so these things are not left up to individual insurance policies to specify. (Of course, a more liberal definition will raise all of our premiums, but I'm willing to eat that nut.)

 

[CharlesTD]

It's not "wrong" if, as you said, the coverage is "limited like" that. As you say, the law should define what is and is not an accident, so these things are not left up to individual insurance policies to specify. (Of course, a more liberal definition will raise all of our premiums, but I'm willing to eat that nut.)

I am sure everyone would be willing to do so if it meant that this type of situation didn't happen again this must be terrible for the lady atleast up here we don't have to worry about the hospital bills but still that would be a big hit for the other things.

 

[mrsv98]

I have said it for years, the insurance industry is the biggest form of organized crime in the country. They take your money year after year and then if something happens, they look for any tiny excuse not to pay, or give you minimum coverage and then drop you or jack your rates to the sky.

I am taking a litigation class right now and you should hear the stories the atty teaching the class has. He deals with personal injury and says it is astonishing the lengths insurance companies will go to to deny coverage.

What a scam

 

[bicker]

I am sure everyone would be willing to do so if it meant that this type of situation didn't happen again

Really? I don't really think that's the case. The general public seems far more interested in keeping their own costs low, rather than paying the incremental cost for ensuring that an arcane scenario like this never affects them. As long as people select insurance primarily on price, without regard to the volume and gravity of exclusions and exemptions, this kind of thing will recur.

What a scam

However, it is a "scam" (if you must call it that) fostered by what the general public actually wants. Insurance can be written without such exclusions; the actuaries would simply come up with a higher premium, which customers simply aren't interested in paying.

 

[Cindyluwho]

Just to let everyone know, there was an article in this mornings Seattle Times by the same journalist stating that the insurance company is thinking about paying after all. I guess the bad press was too much?

 

[bicker]

Nothing like a little mob rule to get special treatment for just one of many people in such predicaments.

 

[alliecats]

Nothing like a little mob rule to get special treatment for just one of many people in such predicaments.

I think "mob rule" is a little dramatic. That's just the price of doing business in a society where people have many choices about where to get insurance, and a free media to spread the word about situations like this. Sometimes it's the little person who gets screwed, sometimes it's the business. That's life!