Class action: The Hartford and Twin City accused of undervaluing wrecked cars
The proposed class encompasses Hartford Insurance policyholders in New Jersey and those insured by Twin City in Missouri who filed claims within certain dates.
A consumer class action against The Hartford alleges the insurer undervalued totaled or fully destroyed cars, leading to the insured getting paid less than deserved.
David Rosen & Associates, Edelsberg Law, Normand and Shamis & Gentile filed the lawsuit in Connecticut federal court on January 16 on behalf of consumers whom Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest and Twin City Fire Insurance Co. allegedly underpaid for total-loss claims.
The proposed class encompasses Hartford Insurance policyholders in New Jersey who submitted claims between December 23, 2015, and November 29, 2023, and those insured by Twin City in Missouri between July 22, 2013, and November 29, 2013.
The complaint was surfaced by Law.com Radar.
The plaintiffs claim the insurance policies require the insured to pay the actual cash value of the vehicle when it is more expensive to repair the car than to obtain a new one, the complaint said.
The defendants allegedly used a third-party vendor to find the actual cash value of totaled vehicles, which takes “the average price of ‘comparable vehicles’ in the relevant market, adjusted for documented differences between the comparable vehicle(s) and the insured vehicle in mileage, equipment, and condition,” the complaint said.
The next step is when the problem begins, the complaint alleged.
Once the price of similar vehicles is determined, the defendants ”instruct its vendor to apply an arbitrary, baseless, and illegal ‘projected sold adjustment’ reduction to each comparable vehicle where list price is not identified,” the complaint claimed.
As a result, the complaint contended the reduction “artificially” brings down the actual cash value total, which allows the defendants to spend less money.
The named plaintiffs, Janet Hobson of New Jersey and Roy Schoenholtz of Missouri, were both involved in separate car accidents. Neither’s total loss claim was up to par, the complaint said.
The third-party vendor does not follow appraisal standards, the complaint alleged.
“Defendants abandon the comparative methodology and applies adjustments antithetical to proper appraisal methodologies for determining actual cash value,” the complaint claimed. “Appraisers use advertised prices and only make adjustments based on observed and verifiable data; appraisal standards do not permit arbitrary adjustments from the considered price based upon undocumented and unverifiable assumptions.”
The plaintiffs brought claims of breach of contract, stating that The Hartford did not follow its insurance policy, making the class eligible for damages, attorneys costs and fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief, etc.
One of the attorneys for the plaintiff, Ed Normand, declined to comment. The Hartford’s media department did not respond to a request for comment.