Progressive Class Action For Paying Less Than It Owed on Totaled Cars

Progressive Insurance, the third-largest auto insurer in the United States with more than 28 million active policies, faces class action lawsuits in multiple states alleging it systematically underpaid policyholders on total loss vehicle claims. The core allegation is the same across every case: Progressive used third-party software from Mitchell International to calculate vehicle values, and that software applied a “Projected Sold Adjustment” that reduced payouts below what policyholders were actually owed.

Settlements have been reached in New York, Michigan, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Combined, they exceed $200 million. Cases in Pennsylvania and Indiana have been decertified by federal appeals courts, and an Illinois class action was denied certification in April 2026. Progressive denies wrongdoing in every settlement and maintains its valuation methodology is both proper and contractually compliant.

Progressive Class Action Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

2019–2022 — First Lawsuits Filed Across Multiple States

The wave of litigation begins in Michigan, where two separate class actions are filed in state court in 2019 and 2022. Both allege that Progressive Marathon Insurance Company and Progressive Michigan Insurance Company breached their policies by failing to include sales tax, certificate of title fees, and vehicle registration transfer fees in total loss payments. These omissions are not disputed factually. The legal question is whether they violate the terms of the Michigan policies.

Similar lawsuits follow in multiple states, all targeting a practice at the center of Progressive’s valuation process: the use of Mitchell International’s WorkCenter Total Loss software, which applies what it calls a Projected Sold Adjustment, or PSA, to the list prices of comparable used vehicles when calculating actual cash value.

July 2021 — New York Class Action Filed

Lead plaintiffs Dominick Volino and John Plotts file a proposed class action in the Southern District of New York in July 2021. The case, Volino v. Progressive, alleges that Progressive’s use of the Mitchell PSA reduced total loss payouts for New York policyholders below the actual cash value the policies required. Two classes are certified by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in March 2023: a breach of contract class and a New York General Business Law class.

October 2021 — Georgia Case Filed

The case Brown v. Progressive Mountain Insurance Company et al. is filed on October 11, 2021, in Georgia federal court. Plaintiffs allege that Progressive Mountain and Progressive Premier Insurance Company of Illinois applied arbitrary PSA deductions through Mitchell’s software when settling total loss claims in Georgia, violating a state law requiring insurers to pay the actual cost of replacing a comparable vehicle. The case names Mitchell International as a co-defendant.

April 2022 — Alabama Class Action Filed

Lauren Reynolds and co-plaintiffs file Reynolds v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. et al., Case No. 5:22-CV-00503-LCB, in the Northern District of Alabama. The theory mirrors other state cases: Progressive applied PSAs through Mitchell’s software to reduce total loss payouts below actual cash value, breaching its policy obligations to Alabama policyholders.

November 2024 — Michigan $61 Million Settlement Approved

A final approval hearing is held in November 2024 for the Michigan settlement. The two consolidated cases, Ubillus v. Progressive Marathon Ins. Co. and Perry v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co., settle for $61 million. The class covers Michigan policyholders who received total loss payments between July 2013 and July 2024 under Progressive Marathon or Progressive Michigan policies. The settlement resolves claims that Progressive failed to include sales tax, certificate of title fees, and vehicle registration transfer fees in its total loss calculations, in breach of the Michigan policy terms.

March 2025 — New York $48 Million Settlement Approved

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield grants final approval to a $48 million settlement in Volino v. Progressive in March 2025. The deal covers approximately 93,000 New York policyholders who received total loss payments between July 2015 and August 2024 based on Mitchell Instant Reports that included a PSA deduction. Initial average payments to class members who did not opt out are reported at $383 in the first distribution round, with subsequent rounds of $176 and $12. Progressive denies all wrongdoing and maintains it complied with all policy terms and insurance regulations throughout.

April 2025 — Georgia $43 Million Settlement Reached

A $43 million settlement is reached in Brown v. Progressive Mountain Insurance Company, covering approximately 151,485 Georgia policyholders. The class period runs from October 2015 through February 2025 for Progressive Mountain policyholders and from June 2016 through February 2025 for Progressive Premier policyholders. Preliminary approval is granted on February 18, 2025, with a final approval hearing scheduled for May 15, 2025. No claim form is required. Class members are automatically mailed settlement checks, with average payments estimated at $173.

July 2025 — Alabama $30.75 Million Settlement Notice Issued

The settlement administrator for Reynolds v. Progressive begins sending notices to Alabama class members on July 1, 2025. The settlement covers $30.75 million for Alabama policyholders under Progressive Specialty Insurance Company and Progressive Direct Insurance Company policies between April 2016 and May 2025. Eligible class members can receive 100 percent of their calculated PSA Impact Amount, which the parties estimate at approximately 4.31 percent of the actual cash value on each qualifying total loss claim.

July 2025 — Pennsylvania Class Actions Decertified by Third Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reverses class certification for two Pennsylvania lawsuits on July 7, 2025. Lead plaintiffs Leon Drummond, Lee Williams, and Yeshonda Driggins had argued Progressive systematically underpaid Pennsylvania policyholders through the Mitchell PSA. The Third Circuit rules that proving whether Progressive underpaid each class member is an individual question that cannot be proven on a class-wide basis. The court states that identifying whether each class member was actually paid less than true ACV is an individual question, requiring plaintiff-by-plaintiff analysis. The cases are not dismissed. They revert to individual litigation, not class proceedings.

September 2025 — Indiana Class Action Also Decertified

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reverses class certification in a Southern Indiana case brought by plaintiffs Heather Schroeder and Misty Tanner. The Seventh Circuit applies the same reasoning as the Third Circuit: proving whether Progressive undercompensated each class member requires individual analysis incompatible with class action requirements. The case is remanded to the district court, where it continues as individual litigation.

April 2026 — Illinois Class Action Denied

A federal judge in Illinois denies class certification on April 15, 2026, in a case brought by plaintiffs Normanda Holmes and Sherry Citchens-Wright against Progressive Universal Insurance Company. The case traces back to September 2020 accidents. The court finds that the commonality and predominance requirements for class certification are not met, consistent with the reasoning in the Pennsylvania and Indiana appellate decisions. The case remains pending on an individual basis.

What the Projected Sold Adjustment Controversy Is About

The PSA is the mechanism at the center of every Progressive total loss lawsuit. When a vehicle is declared a total loss, Progressive’s policy obligates it to pay the “actual cash value” of the vehicle, typically defined as what it would cost to replace the vehicle with a comparable one in the same market. To determine that value, Progressive contracts with Mitchell International, a third-party claims software company.

Mitchell’s WorkCenter Total Loss software identifies comparable vehicles for sale in the policyholder’s area and applies several adjustments to arrive at a base value. One of those adjustments is the PSA. It is a markdown applied to listed vehicle prices on the assumption that buyers and sellers typically negotiate the sale price below the list price. Plaintiffs across every state argue the PSA is arbitrary, not grounded in fact, and functions specifically to lower payout amounts below what policyholders are owed.

Progressive’s defense is that the PSA reflects real market behavior and that using it results in actual cash value calculations that comply with the terms of its policies. The Third Circuit and Seventh Circuit courts did not rule on whether the PSA is lawful or unlawful. They ruled only that proving its impact is too individualized to resolve through a single class action trial.

State-by-State Settlement and Case Status

Who Qualifies for the Progressive Class Action Settlements

Eligibility varies by state and by the specific Progressive entity that issued the policy. The common thread across all settled cases is this: if you held a Progressive auto policy in a qualifying state, your vehicle was declared a total loss during the class period, and Progressive calculated your payout using a Mitchell Instant Report that applied a PSA deduction, you are likely a class member.

Most settlements send automatic notice to identified class members using Progressive’s own claims data. Receipt of a notice in the mail is confirmation of eligibility. Policyholders in Georgia do not need to file a claim form; payments are mailed automatically. Alabama class members were required to submit claim forms before the October 2025 deadline. The Alabama claim form deadline has now closed. For Arkansas, class members should check the official settlement website at arktotallossclaim.com for current filing instructions and deadlines.

The New Mexico settlement covers a different theory: stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage charged on single-vehicle policies, not the PSA methodology. New Mexico policyholders with stacked UM/UIM coverage on single-vehicle policies between January 2009 and April 2025 may qualify for a share of that $1.76 million fund.

How Much Will Policyholders Receive

Payouts differ by settlement because the fund size, number of class members, and PSA Impact Amounts vary by state. In the New York settlement, initial average payments were reported at $383 per person, with additional distribution rounds of $176 and $12. Georgia’s average is estimated at $173. Alabama’s payout equals 100 percent of the PSA Impact Amount per eligible claim.

The PSA Impact Amount is the dollar value by which the PSA reduced the ACV calculation on a policyholder’s specific claim. For Alabama, that impact is estimated at approximately 4.31 percent of the ACV. For a vehicle valued at $20,000, that would represent roughly $862. Payouts below $100 are common for lower-value vehicles, and payouts above $500 are possible for newer or higher-value vehicles.

Attorney fees come out of the settlement fund before distributions to class members. In Alabama, attorneys are seeking up to 22.5 percent of the total fund plus a $90,000 litigation expenses award and $10,000 service awards to the two lead plaintiffs. Net distributions to class members reflect the remaining balance divided proportionally.

Why Some States Won and Others Lost

The divergence in outcomes across states is not random. It reflects differences in state insurance law, policy language, and the legal standard for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

New York settled in part because state law, specifically New York’s General Business Law, provides a favorable consumer protection framework that supports class-wide claims. Georgia law requires insurers to pay the actual cost of a comparable replacement vehicle, a standard that plaintiffs argued PSAs violated on its face. Michigan’s theory was narrower and more concrete: the specific fees omitted from total loss payments are either included or not, making liability more amenable to class-wide proof.

Pennsylvania and Indiana failed at class certification because the federal appeals courts concluded that liability depends on whether each individual policyholder’s specific payment fell below actual cash value. That determination requires vehicle-by-vehicle analysis. Progressive could have paid proper ACV while still using the PSA, the Third Circuit found, because other components of the valuation could compensate. The PSA’s presence does not automatically mean underpayment. Whether it did must be proven plaintiff by plaintiff.

Progressive’s Defense and Pattern of Denials

Progressive has denied wrongdoing in every settlement and in every contested case. Its position is consistent: the PSA reflects legitimate market data, the Mitchell methodology produces accurate ACV calculations, and its payouts comply with both state insurance law and the terms of its policies. In states where courts agreed with Progressive’s argument that individual proof is required, the company has successfully defeated class certification.

The legal outcome in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois does not mean those policyholders were fairly compensated. It means they cannot pursue that claim collectively. Individual claims for underpayment remain possible in those states, but the cost and complexity of individual litigation against an insurer makes most such claims economically impractical without a class mechanism.

This pattern reflects a broader challenge in insurance litigation. Similar disputes have driven class actions against other major insurers, comparable to what played out in the BCBS antitrust lawsuit that paid out $2.67 billion to 6 million policyholders. The JUUL class action and the Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit both show how corporate product decisions that generate systematic small harms across millions of people often end in large consolidated resolutions when state law provides a viable legal hook.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Progressive total loss litigation exposes a structural problem in how auto insurance claims are settled at scale. Insurers process millions of total loss claims every year. They rely on third-party software to do it. That software makes assumptions. Those assumptions reduce payouts. Most policyholders never challenge the number they are given, partly because they do not know how it was calculated, and partly because the gap between what they received and what they were owed is too small to justify a fight on its own.

Class actions exist precisely because individual claims of $100 or $400 are not economically viable on their own. When the same underpayment methodology applies to hundreds of thousands of policyholders simultaneously, the aggregate harm becomes the basis for litigation. Progressive settling for over $200 million across six states is not an admission that anything was wrong. It is an acknowledgment that continuing to litigate in those jurisdictions cost more than resolving the claims.

The lesson for policyholders: total loss valuations are not final. They are estimates produced by software that an insurance company chose and that an insurance company pays for. Policyholders have the right to challenge those valuations using independent appraisals, their own comparable vehicle research, and, in some states, formal dispute mechanisms built into the policy. Reading the actual cash value section of your auto insurance policy, and knowing whether your state requires inclusion of taxes and fees in total loss settlements, is the first line of defense against systematic underpayment.