Progressive is facing a certified class action over how it values totaled vehicles - specifically, a pricing deduction some say shortchanges policyholders across Ohio.
On July 10, 2025, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld class certification in Davenport v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, clearing the way for a group of Ohio policyholders to collectively challenge a standard method Progressive uses to calculate payouts on total-loss auto claims. At the center of the case is the “Projected Sold Adjustment,” or PSA - a line-item deduction that lowers the listed prices of comparable vehicles when determining actual cash value (ACV).
The plaintiffs, Mon Cheri Davenport, Candice Watts, and Kathi Cassi, allege that Progressive’s use of the PSA results in consistent underpayments. They’re not just speaking for themselves; they filed suit on behalf of a proposed class of Progressive insureds in Ohio dating back to April 2014, whose total-loss claims involved valuations using Mitchell International’s WorkCenter Total Loss software.
Progressive’s policies promise to pay the “actual cash value” of a totaled car, defined as the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time of the loss. But the policies don’t say much about how that value should be calculated. That’s where Mitchell’s valuation reports come in. The reports pull data on recently listed or sold vehicles and make adjustments for features like mileage, trim, and condition. The PSA is applied when a comparable vehicle has a list price but is not sold by a “non-haggle” dealer. In those cases, Mitchell reduces the listed price to reflect what it estimates the car would actually sell for, assuming a typical negotiation.
Progressive says this is just good data science. It relies on data from J.D. Power, which matches vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to compare listed and sold prices. The company says outliers - like cars sold above list - are excluded to keep things realistic. After July 2021, only above-list-price sales were excluded. Progressive argues that PSAs reflect consumer behavior and are not applied uniformly but vary based on vehicle type and region.
The plaintiffs disagree. One of their experts analyzed millions of used-car transactions and found that cars typically sell at their list price. Others argued that the PSA relies on outdated assumptions about buyer behavior and doesn’t reflect how pricing works in today’s online-driven market. They claim the deduction isn’t based on actual observed data but on speculation.
Progressive pushed back, saying that even if the PSA were removed, not all class members would benefit - and some could even lose out. But the court said that’s not the issue right now. The key legal question - whether using the PSA violates the policy promise to pay actual cash value - applies to everyone in the class. That’s enough to move forward.
The certified class includes all Ohio residents who submitted a first-party total-loss claim to Progressive from April 6, 2014, through the date of certification, and whose claims involved a Mitchell valuation report where a PSA was applied to at least one comparable vehicle.
This ruling doesn’t mean Progressive did anything wrong - it just means the case can go forward as a class action. Still, it raises clear questions for insurers about how pricing adjustments are applied in total-loss scenarios. For claims teams and valuation professionals, the takeaway is simple: practices that seem routine inside the company may look very different when tested in court.
