The Seventh Circuit on July 24, 2025, reversed a class action ruling over Progressive’s method for valuing totaled cars in Indiana.
The case involved Progressive Paloverde Insurance Company and Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. (together, Progressive) and centered on their use of “Projected Sold Adjustments,” a pricing feature in a valuation system built by Mitchell International with J.D. Power. These adjustments were used when only list prices of comparable cars were available and were meant to reflect typical negotiation between buyers and sellers. Heather Schroeder and Misty Tanner, two Indiana policyholders, claimed the adjustments lowered payouts on their totaled cars and breached Progressive’s auto policy.
Progressive’s standard-form Indiana auto policy promises to cover “sudden, direct and accidental loss” from collisions, up to the car’s “actual cash value … at the time of the loss reduced by the applicable deductible.” The policy also states that “actual cash value is determined by the market value, age, and condition of the vehicle at the time the loss occurs” and permits Progressive to use estimating or appraisal systems, including third-party software, to assist in determining loss amounts.
Schroeder’s 2018 Toyota Corolla was deemed a total loss after a February 2019 accident. Progressive’s system valued it at $14,576 after adjustments, including a $655 reduction from Projected Sold Adjustments. The company then subtracted the $500 deductible in making its settlement offer, which Schroeder accepted.
Tanner’s 2013 Chrysler 200 was totaled in July 2020. Progressive initially valued it at $7,062 after adjustments, including a $549 reduction for Projected Sold Adjustments, and subtracted the same $500 deductible. Tanner disputed the valuation. Progressive re-ran the calculation excluding three comparable cars with the lowest adjusted prices, which increased the valuation by $500. Tanner then accepted the revised offer.
In May 2022, Schroeder filed suit claiming Progressive’s use of Projected Sold Adjustments breached the duty to pay actual cash value. Tanner joined in April 2023. Schroeder sought to represent a class of Indiana policyholders whose total-loss claims were reduced using this method.
The Southern District of Indiana certified the class, reasoning that whether Progressive’s use of Projected Sold Adjustments violated the policy was a question common to all class members. Progressive appealed.
The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Progressive’s policy did not prohibit using Projected Sold Adjustments so long as the final payout reflected actual cash value as defined under Indiana law. The court found that deciding whether Progressive underpaid any given policyholder would require individualized inquiries into each car’s value and comparable sales, making class treatment improper.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, with only individual claims left in play.
