Class action alleges Progressive unlawfully denied collision coverage
The lawsuit was filed on November 4 in Massachusetts Superior Court.
A class action suit has been filed accusing Progressive of using a “binding restriction” to deny collision coverage to policyholders, but under Massachusetts law, there are only six scenarios when coverage can be denied.
This complaint was surfaced on Law.com Radar.
The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 4 in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County, claimed insurers are allowed to refuse coverage collision under General Laws Chapter 175, Section 113H in the following six instances:
- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has been convicted of vehicular homicide, insurance fraud or motor vehicle theft within the past five years.
- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has lied while making a claim under their policy in the past five years.
- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has been more than 50% at fault for four or more accidents in the within three years before the effective date of the policy.
- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs within the past three years.
- A vehicle that has been issued a salvage title.
- A high-theft vehicle lacking the minimum auto theft or auto recovery device recommended by the commissioner of insurance.
The named plaintiff, Danielle Gondola, claimed she was denied insurance coverage despite not falling into any of the exceptions stipulated by Massachusetts law.
However, when Gondola chose her policy of automobile insurance, Progressive allegedly “refused to offer first-party physical damage coverage to Gondola.” Gondola claimed she would have purchased the collision and comprehensive coverage if it was available.
Gondola is represented by solo practitioners Joshua N. Garick and Scott G. Gowen. Counsel for the plaintiff did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint also purported that all insurers are required to offer customers collision coverage under state law.
Counsel for progressive has not appeared yet. Spokesperson for Progressive, Jeff Sibel, did not respond to a request for comment.
“Progressive maintained that the reason it refused to offer collision coverage was due to a ‘binding restriction,’ that it baldly claimed was legal,” the complaint said. “However, Progressive never articulated the lawful basis for this ‘binding restriction’ and how it could, as a matter of law, supersede statutory authority to the contrary and deprive a Massachusetts consumer of the statutory protections mandated by the Legislature.”
The proposed class accused Progressive of unfair and deceptive business practice under General Laws Chapter 93A and 176D, which has led to policyholders to “involuntarily forgo desired coverages.”
“Progressive has implemented a systemic, predetermined refusal to offer optional automobile insurance coverages due to a so-called “binding restriction” that runs counter to established Massachusetts law that limits the circumstances under which an insurer can refuse to offer optional coverages.”
Read the complaint:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]