Dug into this deeper. Check this out:
Why would Progressive request the following and get it granted from the court?
It is this 19th day of May, 2011, by the Circuit Court For Baltimore City, hereby ORDERED
1. That Progressive Advance Insurance Company be and is hereby allowed to intervene as a party Defendant.
2. That Progressive Insurance Company is GRANTED all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case.
And then in court on August 6th...check this out:
At the beginning of the trial on Monday, August 6th, an attorney identified himself as Jeffrey R. Moffat and stated that he worked for Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. He then sat next to the defendant. During the trial, both in and out of the courtroom, he conferred with the defendant. He gave an opening statement to the jury, in which he proposed the idea that the defendant should not be found negligent in the case. He cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On direct examination, he questioned all of the defense’s witnesses. He made objections on behalf of the defendant, and he was a party to the argument of all of the objections heard in the case. After all of the witnesses had been called, he stood before the jury and gave a closing argument, in which he argued that my sister was responsible for the accident that killed her, and that the jury should not decide that the defendant was negligent.
So as it always is with lying Progressive scumbag traitors...they will twist the truth, tell only partial truths and rely solely on what the definition of “is” is to manipulate the public.
Why wouldn't they request to have a lawyer present during the trial? If they're going to be paying most of the money, shouldn't they be sure that the trial doesn't become totally one-sided?
The question is whether or not their lawyer was representing the driver. Progressive says he was only representing the insurance company, not the driver, and provided no evidence at the trial.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/comedian-matt-fishers-tum_n_1775191.html?utm_hp_ref=business
It appears as though Progressive handled this the way they should given the laws of the State. I don't understand why people think they should have just paid out the full amount while there was still question about who was at fault.