On January 18, 2024, Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, P.C., filed a proposed class action complaint against Progressive Advanced Insurance Company. The purpose of this lawsuit is to resolve the question of whether companies that offer auto insurance in Pennsylvania must compensate a third-party claimant for the “loss of value” in their vehicles. SMB partner Patrick Howard filed the complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of Lee Alexander.
Insurer Paid for Repairs, But Not Loss of Value
Alexander, a resident of Yardley, Pennsylvania, owns a 2015 Mazda van. One day last February, Alexander’s son was driving the van when it was struck by another vehicle owned and operated by Jacon Secore. Progressive insured Secore’s vehicle.
Alexander then filed a third-party claim with Progressive, seeking compensation for the damage to the Mazda. Progressive’s adjusters investigated the claim, determined that Secore was at-fault for the accident, and issued a repair estimate to Alexander for $2,690.75. Progressive’s estimate explicitly stated that it would guarantee repairs “that will return your vehicle to its pre-loss condition.”
The final repair bill came to $3,098.33, which Progressive paid to the repair shop. But Alexander demanded that Progressive honor its commitment to restoring his vehicle to its “pre-loss condition.” Which meant compensating him for the permanent loss in value to the vehicle itself.
Alexander submitted an outside appraisal of the Mazda to Progressive. The appraiser determined that the accident caused the permanent value of the Mazda to decline by $5,222.18. Progressive refused to pay for these damages. Instead, the insurer insisted it complied with the law by paying the repair bills.
The Unsettling Scenario: When Repairs Aren’t Enough
Imagine your beloved vehicle taking a hit, and the aftermath isn’t just a dent in the metal but a dent in its very essence. That’s the reality Lee Alexander faced in Yardley, Pennsylvania. His 2015 Mazda van, a faithful companion, collided with Jacon Secore’s vehicle, insured by Progressive. Progressive did what they do—they paid for repairs, but here’s the twist—they refused to acknowledge the “loss of value.” It’s not just about fixing the surface; it’s about restoring the soul of the vehicle.
Progressive’s Payout: A Twist in the Tale
Progressive’s adjusters swung into action, assessing damages, and handed Alexander a repair estimate of $2,690.75. They promised restoration to the pre-loss condition—a commitment that resonated with hope. The final repair bill? $3,098.33, promptly paid to the repair shop. But Alexander sought more than just fixes; he wanted his van to regain its lost glory, its intrinsic worth. Progressive disagreed, leaving Alexander in a legal quagmire.
Pennsylvania’s Legal Maze: Seeking Justice for “Loss of Value”
The heart of the proposed class action beats with the question: Does Pennsylvania law truly stand for the proposition that insurers must compensate for the “loss of value”? Alexander’s plight is not isolated; it’s a potential saga for countless others. We’re not just seeking compensation; we’re seeking a declaration—an acknowledgment that an automobile’s diminished value is an insurable loss.
The legal arsenal is drawn from two pillars—The Restatement of Torts and Pennsylvania’s Civil Jury Instructions. Both emphasize that when a property sustains damage that isn’t a total loss, compensation extends beyond repairs to include the reduction in market value. Progressive’s defense? A misinterpretation of the law, claiming a plaintiff can’t seek both the difference in value and repair costs. SMB’s response? Challenge accepted.
SMB’s Battle Cry: Why a Class Action?
Class actions aren’t just legal proceedings; they’re a strategic war plan against corporate giants. Why wage this battle collectively?
- Costs: Legal battles are expensive. By joining forces, we share the burden, ensuring every affected individual has a fighting chance without emptying their pockets.
- Efficiency: One judge, one courtroom. It’s not just about convenience; it’s about streamlining the fight for justice. A unified battlefront is harder to ignore.
- Uniformity: A single decision can set a precedent. By certifying a class, we seek uniformity—a clear signal that loss of value matters and must be addressed.
- Compensation: In a sea of individual lawsuits, some drown at the back. A class action ensures everyone gets their day in court, minimizing the risk of being left with nothing.
This isn’t just a legal strategy; it’s a commitment to ensure every voice is heard, and every story acknowledged.
Closing the Gap: SMB’s Call to Action
If you’ve ever wondered if your insurance truly covers every aspect of potential damages, you’re not alone. Class actions aren’t just legal jargon; they’re a beacon of hope for those facing insurance giants. Don’t navigate this complex maze alone—let Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky be your guide. We’re not just lawyers; we’re advocates for justice. Contact us today for a free case evaluation, because your fight is our fight. Let’s rewrite the narrative together.