Progressive umbrella policies were designed to offer comprehensive coverage for automobile accidents. However, the policy often comes with a significant fine that can add to your vehicle repair bill or leave you owing hundreds of dollars, if not thousands, in legal fees.
When a Progressive policy is purchased, Progressive requires the insured to sign a document known as a Progressive umbrella policy document. In order to be protected by the Progressive umbrella policy, the insured must agree to pay a fine equal to the amount of the Progressive umbrella policy. In a recent ruling, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Schachner determined that Progressive breached its obligation of care by failing to disclose to the insured that his policy contained a high-risk rider and therefore violated Wisconsin's insurance statute.
According to the state Supreme Court, Progressive failed to make its insurance coverage known to the insured, despite the fact that the insured informed the insurer of the rider. The insured failed to provide the insurer with a reasonable explanation as to why the high-risk rider was being included in the policy.
In a decision handed down by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on May 3, the court found that Progressive violated the Wisconsin insurance statute when it did not inform the insured that the policy contained the rider. The policy was not made available to the insured when he or she bought the policy. Rather, the insurer must make this policy available to the insured at any time after purchase of the policy. The insurance carrier also must tell the insured when and how the policy will be applied to him or her.
Progressive has taken immediate action to defend their policy against the lawsuit, which has been brought by a car accident lawyer who specializes in auto accident cases. According to court filings from the company, they are entitled to summary judgment in the case. The company contends that the policy does not violate the Wisconsin insurance statute because the policy is an absolute policy that does not require the insured to pay a fine. In addition, the company argues that they were not required by the Wisconsin law to disclose the riders.
“The claim against the insurance company is a serious matter and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter, but it appears that we have a strong defense because we were not required to disclose the riders in the policy, which is required by law,” said attorney David Heins, who is representing the plaintiff. in the case.