Progressive and Erie are accused of ignoring clear evidence that they reported another person's claims history to a Connecticut woman's C.L.U.E. file.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Erie Indemnity Co. are facing a federal lawsuit that puts a spotlight on how insurers handle consumer disputes over data they furnish to LexisNexis.
The case, Sanchez Cardenas v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., No. 3:26-cv-00138, filed on January 28, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, centers on a Connecticut woman who says she spent years paying higher insurance premiums because her C.L.U.E. report contained someone else's information.
According to court filings, Susana Elizabeth Sanchez Cardenas discovered that her LexisNexis report contained insurance policies and accident claims belonging to a different person entirely—Susana Sanchez Barajas, who holds a Maryland driver's license and shares an insurance policy with her husband, Vladimir De Paz. De Paz, the filings allege, has been in several at-fault accidents, including ones that involved bodily harm. All of it ended up on Sanchez Cardenas's record.
The two women share a first name, but that appears to be where the similarities end. Sanchez Cardenas lives in Connecticut, holds a Connecticut driver's license, and has never lived in Maryland. She has a different Social Security number and has never lived at the same address as Sanchez Barajas. They also have different names.
Yet when she flagged the errors to LexisNexis in January 2025—providing her full Social Security number and Connecticut driver's license to verify her identity—she says both insurers dismissed her concerns.
LexisNexis forwarded the dispute to Progressive and Erie. But the lawsuit alleges that both companies performed only a cursory review before verifying that the information was correct and should remain on her report.
That decision, she claims, kept her insurance rates high and made it impossible for her to shop for a lower rate.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a system designed for speed, not accuracy. It accuses both insurers of maintaining dispute procedures that prioritize efficiency over getting things right—and of ignoring red flags from internal audits and litigation that should have prompted change.
At issue are the insurers' obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The law requires data furnishers to conduct meaningful investigations when consumers dispute reported information and to review all relevant materials provided by credit reporting agencies. The suit alleges Progressive and Erie failed on both counts—and then neglected to include any notation that the account was even disputed.
Sanchez Cardenas is seeking actual, statutory, and punitive damages, and has requested a jury trial. No determination has been made on the merits of the case.
For insurers, the case serves as a reminder that furnisher obligations under the FCRA carry real litigation risk—particularly when dispute protocols rely on internal verification rather than substantive review. As C.L.U.E. data continues to drive underwriting decisions, the accuracy of that information, and the processes used to correct it, remain under scrutiny.
