fbpx

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. Underpayment for Total Loss Class Action

Oklahoma plaintiff Rachel Curtis was unfortunate enough to have two accidents in a row. The first, on June 8, 2017 totaled her 2006 four-cylinder Chevy Malibu, which had nearly 98,000 miles on it. She took the payout from her policy with Progressive Northern Insurance Company and bought a six-cylinder 2006 Chevy Malibu. Roughly a month later, on July 4, 2017, she had another accident, totaling that car. Although the newer six-cylinder had only 67,000 miles on it, Progressive’s payout was barely higher than for the first car—too low, according to the complaint for this class action.

The class for this action is all entities and adult persons living in Oklahoma who bought an automobile policy from Progressive containing collision or comprehensive coverage.

Oklahoma’s Insurance Code and Statutes set standards for evaluating total loss vehicle claims. These include guidelines for determining the fair market value of the vehicle using comparable vehicles in the area and listings in the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) guidebook or a similar guidebook.

However, according to the complaint, Progressive uses a JD Power program called Mitchell WorkCenter Total Loss to calculate the worth of vehicles, which the complaint claims consistently undervalues vehicles. Using this program, Progressive’s payout for Curtis’s second car was only $4,282.54.

The complaint alleges that Curtis’s car had less than 67,000 miles on it, while the “comparable vehicles” Progressive used to evaluate it had mileages of from 97,000 to 187,000. In other words, it asserts that the vehicles were not at all comparable. On top of this, the complaint claims that Progressive automatically deducted approximately 10.5% of these vehicles’ values.

Curtis gave Progressive a printout of a NADA evaluation of her car, which showed a value of $6,125. Progressive countered by giving her their own NADA printout, showing a value of $5,912—and then, according to the complaint, refused to adjust their valuation of her vehicle.

The complaint alleges that the Mitchell WorkCenter program consistently undervalues vehicles, and that Progressive adds to the problem by not choosing vehicles that are actually comparable for the evaluation, both of which allow Progressive to underpay for total losses. According to the complaint, this constitutes fraud or negligent misrepresentation and is contrary to the policies set forth by Oklahoma insurance laws.

In addition, the complaint says, Progressive has breached its contract with Curtis under their insurance policy and has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. Underpayment for Total Loss Complaint

October 10, 2017

NOTE: This document contains the original Petition (Complaint), the Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production; and an Amended Petition (Amended Complaint).

Oklahoma plaintiff Rachel Curtis totaled her car on July 4, 2017. Since the car had only 67,000 miles on it, the complaint for this class action alleges that Progressive Northern Insurance Company’s payout was too low. The complaint alleges that the company uses the Mitchell WorkCenter program, which consistently undervalues vehicles, and that Progressive adds to the problem by not choosing vehicles that are actually comparable for the evaluation. According to the complaint, this constitutes fraud or negligent misrepresentation and is contrary to the policies set forth by Oklahoma insurance laws. 

progressive_total_loss_complaint_2.pdf

Case Event History

Progressive Northern Insurance Co. Underpayment for Total Loss Complaint

October 10, 2017

NOTE: This document contains the original Petition (Complaint), the Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Request for Production; and an Amended Petition (Amended Complaint).

Oklahoma plaintiff Rachel Curtis totaled her car on July 4, 2017. Since the car had only 67,000 miles on it, the complaint for this class action alleges that Progressive Northern Insurance Company’s payout was too low. The complaint alleges that the company uses the Mitchell WorkCenter program, which consistently undervalues vehicles, and that Progressive adds to the problem by not choosing vehicles that are actually comparable for the evaluation. According to the complaint, this constitutes fraud or negligent misrepresentation and is contrary to the policies set forth by Oklahoma insurance laws. 

progressive_total_loss_complaint_2.pdf
Tags: Actual Cash Value, Deceptive Insurance Practices, Incomplete payment of benefits due