Dominick Volino et al. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. et al. Case 1:21-cv-06243-LGS
Important Update: Unclaimed funds allowed for a second round of payments to be sent to those Class Members who successfully cashed or claimed their initial round of payments. Those payments were sent on November 4, 2025.
If you are a Class Member who successfully accepted a Digital Disbursement payment in May or June of 2025, you were sent your second payment via that same method. If you successfully deposited a check between May and September of 2025, you were mailed a check to the address on record.
If you did not successfully claim or cash your initial payment, you will not receive any further payment and are not eligible to have your initial payment reissued. Attempting to cash a check from this Settlement dated before November 4, 2025, will result in the check not being honored and you may incur bank fees which will not be reimbursed.
If you were a New York resident and policyholder with Progressive during the time period of July 28, 2015, to August 20, 2024 or a New York resident who made a claim on another person’s policy with Progressive during the time period of July 28, 2018, to August 20, 2024, you may be entitled to a payment from a proposed settlement in the class action lawsuit Volino, et al. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., et al.
This Settlement resolves allegations that Progressive Advanced Ins. Co., Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., Progressive Max Ins. Co., and Progressive Casualty Ins. Co. (collectively referred to as “Progressive” or "Defendants") systematically paid their insureds less than the actual cash value of their vehicles for total loss claims, in breach of Progressive’s policies. In addition to their breach of contract claim, Plaintiffs also asserted claims on behalf of insureds and third-party claimants alleging deceptive practices in violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349 and sought a judgment that Progressive’s application of Projective Sold Adjustments violates Regulation 64. The Class Representatives only challenged the application of the “projected sold adjustment” as part of the valuation process.
The Class Representatives and Defendants agreed to a settlement to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation, including a potential trial, and so that the Class Members can get payments in exchange for releasing Defendants from liability. The Settlement does not mean Defendants broke any laws and/or did anything wrong, and the Court did not decide which side was right.