Progressive accused of running illegal Uber rideshare insurance scheme in California

Progressive, Blue Hill class action overview:

• Who: Plaintiffs Daniel Kaiser and Logan Kerwin filed a class action lawsuit against Progressive Corp. and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Co. Inc.
• Why: Kaiser and Kerwin claim Progressive and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance misled rideshare users about the legal compliance of their Uber insurance coverage.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Progressive and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance of misleading millions of California rideshare users into believing they were purchasing a legally compliant insurance safety net.

Plaintiffs Daniel Kaiser and Logan Kerwin’s class action lawsuit claims Progressive and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance provided Uber rideshare users with an “illusory and unlawful product designed to evade its core legal obligations.”

“The scheme is predicated on a classic bait-and-switch: charging millions of California rideshare users for a robust, legally compliant insurance safety net, while providing an illusory and unlawful product designed to evade its core legal obligations”, the Progressive class action says.

Kaiser and Kerwin want to represent a California class of consumers who paid Uber for rideshare services in the state during the class period, and a California subclass of consumers who were also an occupant of the rideshare vehicle for the rides they purchased.

Bait and switch made UM/UIM coverage secondary, not primary, class action alleges

The plaintiffs in the case allege passengers were charged through Uber fares for the full, legally-mandated $1,000,000 primary UM/UIM coverage that California requires TNCs to provide.

However, they claim Progressive and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance deliberately issued an illegal and illusory policy designed to make the UM/UIM coverage secondary (excess) instead of primary and unlawfully, thus excluding huge categories of damages such as medical expenses for injured drivers. 

Kaiser and Kerwin claim the insurance companies did this to underbid competitors, win Uber’s business, and pocket the difference.

The plaintiffs claim Progressive and Blue Hill Specialty Insurance are guilty of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and of violating California’s Unfair Competition Law and Business and Professions Code.

Kaiser and Kerwin demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members.

Earlier in September, Progressive Direct Insurance Co. agreed to a $500,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it violated Florida law by sending debt-collection emails late at night.

Did you purchase insurance coverage from Progressive or Blue Hill Specialty Insurance? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alex S. Madar of Madar Law Corp.

The Progressive class action lawsuit is Kaiser, et al. v. The Progressive Corp., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-09900, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Credit Karma class action alleges company improperly accessed credit reports
• Ford faces class action over alleged defect in Ford Explorer seat belts
• Toyota recalls more than 126K Tundra Lexus vehicles over engine stall risk
• Credit One Bank lawsuit claims bank placed harassing, deceptive phone calls