Progressive Class Action Lawsuit: Insurer Accused of Denying Collision Coverage

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive, alleging that the insurer unlawfully denied collision coverage to policyholders in Massachusetts. The lawsuit claims that Progressive's "binding restriction" policy violates state law and prevents access to required coverage.

Consumers Affected: Policyholders in Massachusetts who were denied collision coverage by Progressive.

Court: Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Progressive Direct Insurance Co. is the target of a class action lawsuit filed in Massachusetts, alleging that the insurer unlawfully denied collision coverage to certain policyholders. 

The lawsuit, initiated in Suffolk County Superior Court on November 4, 2024, claims that Progressive relied on a “binding restriction” policy to refuse coverage, which plaintiffs argue does not meet the legal standards outlined in Massachusetts law.

Progressive Systematically Denies Collision Coverage, Lawsuit Claims

Plaintiff Danielle Gondola claims that Progressive systematically refused to offer her the option to buy first-party physical damage coverage, even though she believes she qualified under Massachusetts regulations. Massachusetts insurance guidelines require auto insurers to offer collision coverage except under a few specific conditions. Gondola states that none of these conditions applied to her, yet she was denied the option to add this coverage to her policy.

These laws outline six scenarios where auto insurers can lawfully deny collision coverage:

1. When a vehicle’s owner or primary driver has been convicted of vehicular homicide, insurance fraud, or vehicle theft in the last five years.
2. When the vehicle’s owner or driver has made a false statement on a previous insurance claim in the last five years.
3. When the vehicle’s owner or primary driver has been at fault in four or more accidents in the last three years.
4. When the vehicle’s owner or primary driver has a DUI conviction within the past three years.
5. When a vehicle has a salvage title.
6. When a vehicle is classified as a high-theft model and lacks an anti-theft or recovery device.

According to Gondola, none of these factors applied to her situation, yet she was denied the chance to purchase collision coverage.

"Binding Restriction" Violates State Law, Lawsuit Says

Gondola states that she purchased a six-month auto insurance policy from Progressive on December 20, 2023, and sought to include collision and comprehensive coverage. Progressive allegedly refused to offer these options due to a “binding restriction.” 

Less than a month into her policy, Gondola’s vehicle was involved in an accident with two other vehicles, causing substantial damage. When she filed a claim, Progressive denied it, as she did not have collision coverage—coverage she claims she would have added if offered.

The lawsuit alleges that Progressive’s “binding restriction” effectively prevents policyholders like Gondola from accessing coverage options they would otherwise be entitled to under Massachusetts regulations.

The complaint further argues that Progressive’s approach is unique in that it seemingly bypasses legal requirements without offering policyholders specific grounds for denying coverage. 

Progressive Settles Similar Class Action Lawsuit

The lawsuit comes as Progressive reports an expansion in its underwriting margin, a rise in the number of active policies, and record advertising expenditures during the third quarter of 2024. 

However, the company recently settled a similar class action lawsuit with New York drivers for $48 million. The suit, filed in July 2015, alleged that Progressive systematically undervalued policyholders’ totaled vehicles, leading to lower payouts.

Meanwhile, Progressive isn’t the only insurance company involved in recent legal cases. In August, GEICO was named in a proposed class action lawsuit, claiming systemic underpayment to policyholders. Filed in New York, the suit alleges that GEICO does not include sales tax in its payouts under the Actual Cash Value system, a practice the plaintiffs argue violates New York law.

In the Progressive collision coverage class action lawsuit, Gondola aims to represent all affected policyholders who were similarly denied coverage under Progressive’s alleged binding restriction. She is seeking various forms of relief, including compensation for denied claims and a mandate for Progressive to cease the use of binding restrictions that plaintiffs argue violate Massachusetts regulations.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Gondola v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company
• Case Number: Not available
• Court: Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Joshua N. Garick (Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick, P.C.)
• Scott G, Gowen (Law Offices of Scott G. Gowen)

Have you been denied collision coverage by Progressive? Share your experience in the comments below.