The other driver’s insurance company appeared to be siding with the Fishers when it offered them the full $25,000 that his own liability policy covered. But Progressive, having already assessed the evidence and come to a different conclusion when it paid claims on Ms. Fisher’s liability policy, decided not to pay the full claim on the underinsured motorist coverage.

While the company did engage in settlement negotiations with the Fishers, the two sides could not come to an agreement. “I think they’re still hoping that we are what they originally thought we were: stupid people that they could bully,” Joan Fisher said. “I think they thought that we would just turn our tails down behind us and walk away.”

Instead, the Fishers chose to sue the driver of the other vehicle to determine who was truly at fault in the accident. Armed with a favorable judgment, they could then force Progressive to pay their daughter’s underinsured motorist claim in full.

Progressive didn’t want that to happen, so it filed a motion to intervene in the case and sent its lawyer to court alongside the other driver’s lawyer to make the case that Ms. Fisher was at fault (giving rise to her brother’s accusation that the company defended her killer). The jury sided with the Fishers and determined that she bore no fault at all.

The Fishers’ lawyer, Allen Cohen, said he felt that Progressive’s conduct raised questions about whether the state insurance commissioner would find that the company had acted in bad faith. After all, he explained, two of the witnesses who lined up against Ms. Fisher were not independent, since one had made a liability claim against her insurance policy and another (the other driver) had potential criminal exposure.

“I have no issue in general with insurance companies defending themselves,” he said. “But in this specific case, I have an issue with how they examined the evidence to come to the decision to abandon their insured.”

Progressive sure seems to have done absolutely everything wrong here. It paid out three liability claims, doubled down in court on its interpretation of the evidence that was behind those payouts, lost in court, was roundly mocked online, will pay the underinsured motorist claim to the Fishers after all and is now also paying them a separate settlement to avoid a hearing before the state insurance commissioner.