For Immediate Release
Administration Assault on Railroad Safety Must End, AAJ DeclaresProposed State Law Preemption Contradicts Congressional Intent,
Jeopardizes Public Safety and Victims’ Access to Justice
Washington, DC— The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today declared that the Bush Administration must end its effort to prohibit railway accident victims from pursuing legal action against railroad companies responsible for their injury or death. The latest proposed federal railroad safety regulations continues an unprecedented assault on state safety standards, directly challenging Congressional intent and jeopardizing public safety and victims’ access to justice.
“Embracing corporate irresponsibility, the Administration is blatantly ignoring the recent law passed by Congress and instead proposing a slap in the face to consumer safety,” said AAJ CEO Jon Haber. “This is yet another cynical effort allowing major corporations to evade accountability in the courts when people are killed and injured by their negligence and wrongdoing.”
Despite Congressional action earlier this year to clarify that federal law does not pre-empt state law or causes of action, the FRA has ignored the legislation and instead effectively claimed the power to regulate with the force of law without regard to the will of Congress.
In the preamble to the proposed rule (Docket No. FRA-2006-26175, Notice No. 1) the FRA added language claiming that “[s]ubject to a limited exception for essentially local safety or security hazards, its requirements will establish a uniform Federal safety standard that must be met, and state requirements covering the same subject are displaced, whether those standards are in the form of state statutes, regulations, local ordinances, or other forms of state law, including state common law.”
While in its comments on the proposed regulation the AAJ stated it believes that the language in the preamble has no substantive effect, it must be withdrawn to avoid conflict and possible misinterpretation with the Congressional intent clarifying the issue recently. That legislation stated “that 49 U.S.C. 20106 does not preempt State law causes of action where a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care established by a regulation or order issued by the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Homeland Security, its own plan or standard…, or a State law, regulation or order that is not incompatible with 49 U.S.C. 20106(a)(2).”
A copy of AAJ’s letter to the FRA demanding the removal of the pre-emption language is available upon request.
###
AAJ: 1050 31st Street NW, Washington, DC, 20007
As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. Serving members worldwide, AAJ provides attorneys with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.
Visit http://www.justice.org
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
What could be scarier this Halloween?
Tonight on Anderson Cooper 360° prepare to hear a chilling story of lies and deceit as two everyday Americans are haunted by undercover agents in their own church.
Progressive Insurance willingly accepted the premiums that Bill and Leandra Pitts paid them each month for UM Insurance. After a car crash in Henry County that left the Pitts with injuries and damages not covered by the at-fault driver, they turned to their UM coverage to pay for what was left—the coverage that they had dutifully paid for every month.
Progressive Insurance, in an attempt to save a buck, hired two undercover private investigators to follow the Pitts in their community and to their church where the two agents posed as prospective members. Taking the deceit to incredible lengths, the two agents talked their way into a private Bible-study held in a private home and were privy to intimate and personal disclosures of the church members. Progressive hoped that they would discover something that would free them from covering the damages. But they didn’t.
The Pitts, after hiring GTLA member Wayne Grant, have filed suit against Progressive Insurance alleging that the company’s spooky tactics against their own clients went too far. Tonight, Anderson Cooper on CNN will look into the case.
Progressive Insurance willingly accepted the premiums that Bill and Leandra Pitts paid them each month for UM Insurance. After a car crash in Henry County that left the Pitts with injuries and damages not covered by the at-fault driver, they turned to their UM coverage to pay for what was left—the coverage that they had dutifully paid for every month.
Progressive Insurance, in an attempt to save a buck, hired two undercover private investigators to follow the Pitts in their community and to their church where the two agents posed as prospective members. Taking the deceit to incredible lengths, the two agents talked their way into a private Bible-study held in a private home and were privy to intimate and personal disclosures of the church members. Progressive hoped that they would discover something that would free them from covering the damages. But they didn’t.
The Pitts, after hiring GTLA member Wayne Grant, have filed suit against Progressive Insurance alleging that the company’s spooky tactics against their own clients went too far. Tonight, Anderson Cooper on CNN will look into the case.
Friday, October 19, 2007
In Georgia, we don't lie and spy in church
Letter to the Editor in response to an article in October 18th's issue of the AJC.
By: Robin Frazer Clark
GTLA Immediate Past President
‘Appalling’ and ‘Reasonable.’ Two completely different words with two completely different meanings. It’s not a coincidence that Progressive Insurance referred to their own conduct as 'appalling,' and then, when faced with accountability Progressive changes its tune to say their conduct was 'reasonable.'
Progressive spied on Bill and Leandra Pitts in church—in their private Bible-Study! Good Georgians trusted these people as fellow worshipers—not undercover agents sent to spy on them so that a greedy corporation could save a buck.
I applaud my colleague for representing this family. Our Civil Justice System was designed for people just like the Pitts. In a time when so many corporations are living large and reporting record-breaking profits, we need the Civil Justice System to ensure that they aren’t expanding their profit margins by swindling families and those in need. This is the only avenue to hold Progressive accountable and to send a message to other insurance companies—Georgia does not tolerate dishonest business practices. Down here, we don’t lie and spy in church.
By: Robin Frazer Clark
GTLA Immediate Past President
‘Appalling’ and ‘Reasonable.’ Two completely different words with two completely different meanings. It’s not a coincidence that Progressive Insurance referred to their own conduct as 'appalling,' and then, when faced with accountability Progressive changes its tune to say their conduct was 'reasonable.'
Progressive spied on Bill and Leandra Pitts in church—in their private Bible-Study! Good Georgians trusted these people as fellow worshipers—not undercover agents sent to spy on them so that a greedy corporation could save a buck.
I applaud my colleague for representing this family. Our Civil Justice System was designed for people just like the Pitts. In a time when so many corporations are living large and reporting record-breaking profits, we need the Civil Justice System to ensure that they aren’t expanding their profit margins by swindling families and those in need. This is the only avenue to hold Progressive accountable and to send a message to other insurance companies—Georgia does not tolerate dishonest business practices. Down here, we don’t lie and spy in church.
Drought of Leadership
**Response to an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on October 18, 2007.
By: Jamie Bendall
Atlanta Attorney
My patience is drying up like my drinking supply. Commissioner John Oxendine is furiously pumping misinformation from his seemingly still deep reservoir of half-truths regarding the way consumers in Georgia are treated by their insurance companies. It great that he's offended by Progressive's spying on their policy holders in bible study . It would be better if he acted to protect policy holders from these kinds of tactics. Instead he's working right now to prevent policy holders from getting the full benefit of insurance premiums they are already paying for. He's treating insurance companies like they are defenseless, endangered mussels; always seeking to keep them floating on a sea of profits. The people of Georgia are thirsty for Justice and Mr. Oxendine should use his office to see that the benefits of a just insurance industry flow in the right direction. He should support SB 276.
By: Jamie Bendall
Atlanta Attorney
My patience is drying up like my drinking supply. Commissioner John Oxendine is furiously pumping misinformation from his seemingly still deep reservoir of half-truths regarding the way consumers in Georgia are treated by their insurance companies. It great that he's offended by Progressive's spying on their policy holders in bible study . It would be better if he acted to protect policy holders from these kinds of tactics. Instead he's working right now to prevent policy holders from getting the full benefit of insurance premiums they are already paying for. He's treating insurance companies like they are defenseless, endangered mussels; always seeking to keep them floating on a sea of profits. The people of Georgia are thirsty for Justice and Mr. Oxendine should use his office to see that the benefits of a just insurance industry flow in the right direction. He should support SB 276.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Tragedy could have been prevented
Last week a Kentucky jury found in favor of plaintiff Louise Ogborn after she was sexually assusalted in a Louisville McDonalds in 2004.
Ogborn was the victim of a known hoax—that had occurred 40 times previously. At just 18 years old, Ogborn was victimized by a perpetrator impersonating a police officer. While at work, and under the perpetrator’s direction, Ogborn was held prisoner, sexually assaulted and abused for hours.
This tragedy could have been prevented.
McDonalds knew of the hoax and repeatedly ignored its duty to adequately warn the employees of at least 40 previous incidents. When McDonalds became involved in this Civil Justice case, they fought every step of the way against fair compensation for the victim.
The jury of Ogborn’s peers held McDonalds responsible for its negligence resulting in both Ogborn’s false imprisonment and sexual assault. Beyond those findings, the jury even went so far as to write to McDonalds urging that the corporation offer its employees more training concerning sexual harassment and hoaxes.
Our Civil Justice System ensures that people, like Louise Ogborn, who are the victims of the negligence or wrong-doing of others can seek justice and compensation for the harm they’ve suffered.
Louise Ogborn, now 21 years old, has decided to go law school. In a press conference it was said that she is going to law school so that she can work to right wrongs—just as the Civil Justice System promises in our Constitution—Justice for All.
Ogborn was the victim of a known hoax—that had occurred 40 times previously. At just 18 years old, Ogborn was victimized by a perpetrator impersonating a police officer. While at work, and under the perpetrator’s direction, Ogborn was held prisoner, sexually assaulted and abused for hours.
This tragedy could have been prevented.
McDonalds knew of the hoax and repeatedly ignored its duty to adequately warn the employees of at least 40 previous incidents. When McDonalds became involved in this Civil Justice case, they fought every step of the way against fair compensation for the victim.
The jury of Ogborn’s peers held McDonalds responsible for its negligence resulting in both Ogborn’s false imprisonment and sexual assault. Beyond those findings, the jury even went so far as to write to McDonalds urging that the corporation offer its employees more training concerning sexual harassment and hoaxes.
Our Civil Justice System ensures that people, like Louise Ogborn, who are the victims of the negligence or wrong-doing of others can seek justice and compensation for the harm they’ve suffered.
Louise Ogborn, now 21 years old, has decided to go law school. In a press conference it was said that she is going to law school so that she can work to right wrongs—just as the Civil Justice System promises in our Constitution—Justice for All.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Half-truths and Lies in AJC Letter to the Editor
By: Joe Watkins
President of GTLA
**NOTE** The AJC printed a letter, from an Atlanta area doctor, full of half-truths and lies. Joe Watkins, the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association responded.
Dr. Stephen D. Leonard, who, according to state records, is not on the staff of any hospital and works in the hair replacement field, paints a dishonest picture about the reality of medical malpractice in the Labor and Delivery Room. He states that doctors are performing C-Sections because they are fearful of a malpractice suit. Absent from Dr. Leonard's accusations is the truth. He fails to mention that a lawsuit will never see the light of day without the testimony of a qualified physician who states, under oath, that the physician involved violated the standard of care. Our law also limits the amount of damages which may be recovered in malpractice suits. Perhaps this doctor from New York should familiarize himself with the Georgia Code before politically spouting his views at the expense of real families dealing with real hardships as the result of medical negligence.
President of GTLA
**NOTE** The AJC printed a letter, from an Atlanta area doctor, full of half-truths and lies. Joe Watkins, the President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association responded.
Dr. Stephen D. Leonard, who, according to state records, is not on the staff of any hospital and works in the hair replacement field, paints a dishonest picture about the reality of medical malpractice in the Labor and Delivery Room. He states that doctors are performing C-Sections because they are fearful of a malpractice suit. Absent from Dr. Leonard's accusations is the truth. He fails to mention that a lawsuit will never see the light of day without the testimony of a qualified physician who states, under oath, that the physician involved violated the standard of care. Our law also limits the amount of damages which may be recovered in malpractice suits. Perhaps this doctor from New York should familiarize himself with the Georgia Code before politically spouting his views at the expense of real families dealing with real hardships as the result of medical negligence.
Monday, October 1, 2007
AAJ demand FRA withdraw preemption language from new railroad safety regulation
Immediate Release
American Association for Justice (AAJ)
Proposed Rule Endangers Public by Preempting State Tort Laws,
Eliminating Victims’ Access to Justice
Washington, DC— The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today demanded the Bush Administration halt its effort to prohibit railway accident victims from pursuing legal action against railroad companies responsible for their injury or death.
Addition of this preemptive language by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to a pending safety regulation is yet another example of the Bush Administration’s catering to corporate interests while further endangering the public’s health and safety.
“Once again, the Bush Administration has come down on the side of corporate irresponsibility against consumer safety,” said AAJ CEO Jon Haber. “This is a cynical attempt to allow railroad companies to evade accountability in the courts when people are killed and injured by their negligence and wrongdoing.”
Members of Congress also demanding the removal of the pre-emption language include House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Southern California district that suffered a major commuter railroad accident with multiple fatalities in 2005.
The FRA relies upon Section 20106 of the Federal Rail Safety Act to claim that its rule preempts any state law governing railroad safety, despite the fact that Congress specifically reiterated that the provision does no such thing less than two months ago. According to the Congressional Conference Report the provision, “does not preempt State law causes of action where a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care.” The FRA’s attempt to claim otherwise is tantamount to an Administration declaration of the power to regulate with the force of law without regard to the will of Congress.
“President Bush is blatantly ignoring the law passed by Congress just weeks ago,” said Haber, “Unless stricken from the final rule, this preemptive language will only serve the interests of corporate wrongdoers looking to evade accountability for risking the lives of millions of people on our nation’s railroads.”
A copy of AAJ’s Petition for Reconsideration and the Congressional letters demanding the removal of the pre-emption language are available upon request.
###
Contact:
Bill Schulz
202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)
AAJ Press Room
American Association for Justice (AAJ)
Proposed Rule Endangers Public by Preempting State Tort Laws,
Eliminating Victims’ Access to Justice
Washington, DC— The American Association for Justice (AAJ) today demanded the Bush Administration halt its effort to prohibit railway accident victims from pursuing legal action against railroad companies responsible for their injury or death.
Addition of this preemptive language by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to a pending safety regulation is yet another example of the Bush Administration’s catering to corporate interests while further endangering the public’s health and safety.
“Once again, the Bush Administration has come down on the side of corporate irresponsibility against consumer safety,” said AAJ CEO Jon Haber. “This is a cynical attempt to allow railroad companies to evade accountability in the courts when people are killed and injured by their negligence and wrongdoing.”
Members of Congress also demanding the removal of the pre-emption language include House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Southern California district that suffered a major commuter railroad accident with multiple fatalities in 2005.
The FRA relies upon Section 20106 of the Federal Rail Safety Act to claim that its rule preempts any state law governing railroad safety, despite the fact that Congress specifically reiterated that the provision does no such thing less than two months ago. According to the Congressional Conference Report the provision, “does not preempt State law causes of action where a party has failed to comply with the Federal standard of care.” The FRA’s attempt to claim otherwise is tantamount to an Administration declaration of the power to regulate with the force of law without regard to the will of Congress.
“President Bush is blatantly ignoring the law passed by Congress just weeks ago,” said Haber, “Unless stricken from the final rule, this preemptive language will only serve the interests of corporate wrongdoers looking to evade accountability for risking the lives of millions of people on our nation’s railroads.”
A copy of AAJ’s Petition for Reconsideration and the Congressional letters demanding the removal of the pre-emption language are available upon request.
###
Contact:
Bill Schulz
202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)
AAJ Press Room
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Ill-conceived insurance industry proposal is 'bad public policy'
For Immediate Release:
September 27, 2007 from the American Association for Justice.
Washington, DC— A groundbreaking new report on health courts by Case Western Reserve University professors Max Mehlman and Dale Nance finds that health courts would be burdensome, prohibitively expensive and would come at the expense of injured patients. The report prepared under a grant from the American Association for Justice Robert L. Habush Endowment, finds that health courts would require the creation of new and costly bureaucracies that would be controlled at every level by the insurance industry. For more information, see the full Executive Summary. View the Health Courts fact sheet.
Proposals to create special “health courts” are the latest in a series of attempts to eliminate or drastically reduce the rights of injured patients. “This report exposes the health insurance industry’s latest attempt to deprive patients of their rights,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Not only will so-called health courts force patients to seek compensation from bureaucracies dominated by unaccountable insurance companies, but they will also drive up costs. In the end, patients will not be safer and negligent hospitals and doctors will not be held accountable for medical errors.”
The report finds many critical flaws in the health courts concept, including:
The authors conclude the health courts concept is misguided and encourage proponents to abandon it as “bad public policy.”
###
Contact:Bill Schulz 202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)240-678-9398 (Cell)AAJ Press RoomNew Report Says “Health Courts” Bureaucracies Offer Big Financial Burdens and Loss of Patient Rights
September 27, 2007 from the American Association for Justice.
Washington, DC— A groundbreaking new report on health courts by Case Western Reserve University professors Max Mehlman and Dale Nance finds that health courts would be burdensome, prohibitively expensive and would come at the expense of injured patients. The report prepared under a grant from the American Association for Justice Robert L. Habush Endowment, finds that health courts would require the creation of new and costly bureaucracies that would be controlled at every level by the insurance industry. For more information, see the full Executive Summary. View the Health Courts fact sheet.
Proposals to create special “health courts” are the latest in a series of attempts to eliminate or drastically reduce the rights of injured patients. “This report exposes the health insurance industry’s latest attempt to deprive patients of their rights,” said American Association for Justice CEO Jon Haber. “Not only will so-called health courts force patients to seek compensation from bureaucracies dominated by unaccountable insurance companies, but they will also drive up costs. In the end, patients will not be safer and negligent hospitals and doctors will not be held accountable for medical errors.”
The report finds many critical flaws in the health courts concept, including:
- The new health courts bureaucracies would place a massive financial burden on taxpayers and the employers and employees that pay for health care insurance.
- The decision making process would be controlled at every stage by the insurance industry.
- A health courts bureaucracy would not be affordable without substantial increases in doctors malpractice premiums.
- Patients would be forced into the bureaucracies without any choice, and many claims would be arbitrarily limited or barred altogether.
- Patients would have to prove the “avoidability” of their injuries and even those successful in their claim would be under-compensated.
- Wrongdoers would not be held accountable, and the deterrent effect of the civil justice system would be eradicated.
The authors conclude the health courts concept is misguided and encourage proponents to abandon it as “bad public policy.”
###
Contact:Bill Schulz 202-944-2806 (Direct Dial)240-678-9398 (Cell)AAJ Press RoomNew Report Says “Health Courts” Bureaucracies Offer Big Financial Burdens and Loss of Patient Rights
Monday, September 17, 2007
Mom and child kicked off airplane
Tune in to Dr. Phil tomorrow, September 18th at 5:00 pm to hear more about the case of a mother and child who were kicked off an airplane because of a flight attendant’s intolerance.
Kate Penland and her 19 month old toddler, Garrin, both from Atlanta, set out to visit Kate’s father in celebration of Father’s Day on June 16th of this year. After sitting through a nearly 11 hour weather delay in Houston, they boarded their last leg, a Continental Flight to Oklahoma City. Garrin, the toddler, was understandably a bit irritable and tired. His mom, Kate attempted to divert his attention by pointing out the plane next to them through the window. As they pulled from the gate, Garrin said, “Bye-bye plane,” several times.
According to Ms. Penland, the flight attendant, Erika Sikorski, told Kate that she needed to "shut your baby up." Ms. Sikorski made it clear that she didn't want to deal with Garrin for the hour-flight to Oklahoma City. When Kate said she would do the best she could to quiet the child, Ms. Sikorski responded by saying, "It’s called Baby Benedryl!" Kate told the flight attendant that she was not going to drug her child. Ms. Sikorski said that they were bothering the other passengers. When the passengers disputed this, Ms. Sikorski said that the plane was "her plane" and she was in charge. She then apparently reported to the pilot that Kate had threatened her and needed to be removed from the plane.
With absolutely no investigation or verification by the pilot, it was announced that they were returning to the gate and that Kate and Garrin would be removed from the flight. The mother and her toddler were taken from the plane and stranded, again, in Houston until the next day. Ms. Penland said that she requested to retrieve her checked baggage so that she could provide care to her toddler and to herself and was refused.
Kate Penland attempted to contact Continental Airlines several times and was ignored. She then asked for help from GTLA member Steve Goldman and he is now representing her. Tomorrow on Dr. Phil, Kate Penland will tell her story.
When this story first broke, similar stories began to emerge about Passengers' Rights on an airplane-- especially in this post 9-11 world. For more information regarding what is being done on Federal level to address these concerns visit The Coalition for Airplane Passenger Rights.
Kate Penland and her 19 month old toddler, Garrin, both from Atlanta, set out to visit Kate’s father in celebration of Father’s Day on June 16th of this year. After sitting through a nearly 11 hour weather delay in Houston, they boarded their last leg, a Continental Flight to Oklahoma City. Garrin, the toddler, was understandably a bit irritable and tired. His mom, Kate attempted to divert his attention by pointing out the plane next to them through the window. As they pulled from the gate, Garrin said, “Bye-bye plane,” several times.
According to Ms. Penland, the flight attendant, Erika Sikorski, told Kate that she needed to "shut your baby up." Ms. Sikorski made it clear that she didn't want to deal with Garrin for the hour-flight to Oklahoma City. When Kate said she would do the best she could to quiet the child, Ms. Sikorski responded by saying, "It’s called Baby Benedryl!" Kate told the flight attendant that she was not going to drug her child. Ms. Sikorski said that they were bothering the other passengers. When the passengers disputed this, Ms. Sikorski said that the plane was "her plane" and she was in charge. She then apparently reported to the pilot that Kate had threatened her and needed to be removed from the plane.
With absolutely no investigation or verification by the pilot, it was announced that they were returning to the gate and that Kate and Garrin would be removed from the flight. The mother and her toddler were taken from the plane and stranded, again, in Houston until the next day. Ms. Penland said that she requested to retrieve her checked baggage so that she could provide care to her toddler and to herself and was refused.
Kate Penland attempted to contact Continental Airlines several times and was ignored. She then asked for help from GTLA member Steve Goldman and he is now representing her. Tomorrow on Dr. Phil, Kate Penland will tell her story.
When this story first broke, similar stories began to emerge about Passengers' Rights on an airplane-- especially in this post 9-11 world. For more information regarding what is being done on Federal level to address these concerns visit The Coalition for Airplane Passenger Rights.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Oxendine Should Support Consumers
By: Joe Watkins
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
The case of a couple whose own insurance company, Progressive, sent undercover Private Investigators to spy on them at private Bible Study is heartbreaking to say the least—but, sadly, not all that surprising, given the antics of some insurance companies. In this case, rather than paying out the UM insurance coverage for which the couple dutifully paid premiums every month, Progressive engaged in reprehensible measures in an attempt to save a buck.
What is surprising is Commissioner John Oxendine’s condemnation of Progressive’s conduct. He was quoted on 8-30 in the AJC to say, “Georgia policyholders should expect an open and honest relationship with their insurance company…We have to act promptly to protect the consumer.”
While we applaud Commissioner Oxendine’s stance, in this instance, concerning Progressive’s obviously inappropriate conduct, the Commissioner, unfortunately, is not always so supportive of Georgia’s consumers. Indeed, Commissioner Oxendine is adamantly opposed to a bill to protect consumers who elect to purchase UM coverage.
SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton (R), allows for the stacking of elective UM coverage on top of liability insurance when you are in a serious accident. Consumers think that the premiums they pay on this optional insurance already do that, like they do in 23 other states.
But here in GA you don’t always get what you pay for.
SB 276 would ensure that you do.
Commissioner Oxendine opposes SB 276 and instead sides with the insurance industry. I hope that during this upcoming legislative session he will reflect upon his words “Protect the consumer,” stop protecting the ruthless insurance companies, like Progressive, and stand up for the people of Georgia, as an elected official should.
President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association
The case of a couple whose own insurance company, Progressive, sent undercover Private Investigators to spy on them at private Bible Study is heartbreaking to say the least—but, sadly, not all that surprising, given the antics of some insurance companies. In this case, rather than paying out the UM insurance coverage for which the couple dutifully paid premiums every month, Progressive engaged in reprehensible measures in an attempt to save a buck.
What is surprising is Commissioner John Oxendine’s condemnation of Progressive’s conduct. He was quoted on 8-30 in the AJC to say, “Georgia policyholders should expect an open and honest relationship with their insurance company…We have to act promptly to protect the consumer.”
While we applaud Commissioner Oxendine’s stance, in this instance, concerning Progressive’s obviously inappropriate conduct, the Commissioner, unfortunately, is not always so supportive of Georgia’s consumers. Indeed, Commissioner Oxendine is adamantly opposed to a bill to protect consumers who elect to purchase UM coverage.
SB 276, authored by Senator Cecil Staton (R), allows for the stacking of elective UM coverage on top of liability insurance when you are in a serious accident. Consumers think that the premiums they pay on this optional insurance already do that, like they do in 23 other states.
But here in GA you don’t always get what you pay for.
SB 276 would ensure that you do.
Commissioner Oxendine opposes SB 276 and instead sides with the insurance industry. I hope that during this upcoming legislative session he will reflect upon his words “Protect the consumer,” stop protecting the ruthless insurance companies, like Progressive, and stand up for the people of Georgia, as an elected official should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)