Buffington v. The Progressive Corporation

Background

The parties entered into a class action settlement agreement. In a March 27, 2024 order, the court preliminarily approved the agreement, preliminarily certified a settlement class, directed notice to potential class members, and allowed class members to exclude themselves or object. The court held a fairness hearing on August 6, 2024.

Settlement Class

For settlement purposes only, the court certified a class consisting of individuals with personal automobile insurance policies issued in New York and underwritten by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, or Progressive MAX Insurance Company. The class covered individuals who made comprehensive or collision claims that were adjusted as total losses, settled on an actual-cash-value basis, and received either no New York sales tax or less than 8% of the vehicle’s assigned actual cash value in sales tax. The relevant period ran from September 10, 2014, through March 27, 2024.

The order excluded specified people and claims, including Progressive’s officers, directors, employees, and legal representatives; the assigned district and magistrate judges and their immediate families; people who received at least 8% in combined state and local New York sales tax; people who validly opted out; attorneys who had appeared in the action; and certain employees of the plaintiff’s lawyers’ firms. The court affirmed the appointments of class counsel and the class representative.

Court’s Findings

The court found that the class notice was the best practicable notice under the circumstances and complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. It also found that the required notice to government officials under the Class Action Fairness Act complied with applicable requirements.

Applying the standards for approving a class settlement, the court found that the class representative and class counsel adequately represented the class; the settlement was not the product of fraud or collusion; and the negotiations were extensive, conducted at arm’s length, and included several mediation sessions. The court also considered the complexity, expense, and likely duration of continued litigation; the parties’ discovery and motion practice; the risks of proving liability and damages; the risks of maintaining the class through trial; and the possible range of recovery.

The court found that the settlement provided meaningful monetary relief and that class members had the opportunity to recover at least 77.5% of the sales tax that the plaintiff alleged was owed. The court noted that unresolved cross-motions for summary judgment could have resulted in no recovery and likely further appeals. The court found that the class’s reaction supported approval, while the precise number of objections and opt-out requests is unclear in the provided text.

Fees and Service Award

The court awarded class counsel $3,500,000 in attorneys’ fees and $420,000 in costs and expenses. It also awarded the class representative $10,000 for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the settlement class. The court found each award fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances, and directed that the payments be made according to the settlement agreement.

Release, Judgment, and Retained Jurisdiction

Upon the settlement’s effective date, the persons covered by the release would fully and finally release the claims covered by the agreement against the released persons. The release would bind the settlement class members and have preclusive effect as to those released claims. The order permanently barred settlement class members from bringing or participating in actions based on or arising from released claims. The order specifically stated that claims in Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 1:21-cv-06243-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), and Narcisse v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), were not released.

The court granted final approval of the settlement and found it fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the class members’ best interests. It ordered that the action, including all asserted claims, be dismissed on the merits with prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction over the action, the parties, the settlement class members, and Progressive to interpret, implement, and enforce the settlement and the court’s orders. The order also stated that the settlement and order were not admissions or evidence of liability or wrongdoing, except as permitted for enforcing the settlement or addressing released claims.