Insurance declared driver NOT at fault and then reversed it.

by Guest » Sun May 13, 2012 05:27 am
Guest

We were in a motorcycle crash, my boyfriend was driving. We caught a nail on our back tire in the freeway that caused the back tire to pop and go off the rim. Thus the motorcycle could NOT be controlled and we went down. The original PROGRESSIVE insurance adjuster agreed it was not his fault.

We both had some road rash, and I sustained a broken and dislocated thumb. It required surgery. As far as we knew and based on the insurance we requested, we were covered fully both for total loss and medical as well.

The claims adjuster that went to the shop where we had the motorcycle stored ruled it NO FAULT once she found a large nail still embedded in the tire. Still she began by telling us that PROGRESSIVE would not cover all the loan on the motorcycle: Strike one. Since I had medical bills we also requested that they cover that as well. Strike two: They said that they would not cover that either.

We got a lawyer, but it seems that the lawyer walked away from defending my boyfriend after they worked it out so that the motorcycle loan is covered since it was declared a total loss. Now they are only interested on my end of the lawsuit.

Now that I had to put in a claim against his policy suddenly PROGRESSIVE declared him at FAULT because he "failed" to control the motorcycle despite the original finding and for which we have witnesses that stopped on the scene. They called and let us know that they were reversing "liability" unto my boyfriend. As far as I can see, this seems like a bad faith effort from PROGRESSIVE to strong arm us away from receiving payment for my medical.

Any advice would be EXTREMELY helpful. - Thanks.

Total Comments: 1

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 05:57 am Post Subject:

I'm guessing the policy is not affording 1st party coverage such as Medical Payments or Personal Injury Protection (PIP). If not, then the only way they would address your medical bills is under your boyfriends Bodily Injury coverage. This means he would need to be at fault. If he was not at fault then you'd be paying for your own medical expenses. Which way do you want it... he's at fault or you have a few thousands dollars of medical bills to pay out of your pocket? In addition to your medical expenses, they would also pay for your pain and suffering under his BI coverage.

Add your comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.