Class is Certified for Auto Value Suit

The USDC for the Middle District of North Carolina recently certified a class of all Progressive Insurance Company insureds whose total-loss claims of their vehicles were adjusted using an alleged arbitrary and illegal “projected sold adjustment” factor (PSA). When an insured submits a claim for a vehicle that is a total-loss, Progressive uses software it licenses called WorkCenter Total-Loss (WCTL) to generate a valuation report. Included in the valuation is a comparison of vehicles recently sold or currently listed for sale. If a comparable vehicle is listed for sale at a dealer that is not known to be a “no-haggler” dealer, Progressive reduces the vehicle’s price list with a PSA to account for the possibility that the vehicle will sell for less than the list price.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class of all Progressive insureds in North Carolina with first-party auto policies issued in the state, who received compensation for the total loss of their vehicle and who received a total loss valuation generated by the WCTL program, which took a deduction for PSA and then were paid the amount of the valuation with the PSA. In granting certification of the class, the court noted that the threshold requirements were satisfied in that putative class members were ascertainable and members could be identified though objective criteria largely using Progressive’s own records.

The court also found that the four requirements for class certification; numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were all met. For example, the court found, and Progressive did not contest, that there were approximately 60,000 potential class members and joinder would be impracticable – so the numerosity requirement was easily met. The court also found that there were questions of law and fact that were common to all members. As to typicality, the court found that plaintiff’s individual claim was typical of the putative class members – a proposition that Progressive also did not contest. Finally, the court found that the attorneys were qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation – meeting the adequate representation requirement.

The court went on to find that the proposed class action also met the requirements of predominance and superiority rejecting Progressive’s arguments about the individual nature of the injuries and damages, and the possibility of a thousand mini-trials.

The case is Mayra Franco, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situation persons, v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., et al., 1:24-cv-225, USCD for the Middle District of North Carolina