Progressive Class Action Challenges Termination of PIP Benefits

A class action lawsuit alleging that Progressive Insurance is illegally denying injured claimants their PIP medical benefits has been removed to federal court.

Based on the claims made in the Progressive class action lawsuit filed by lead plaintiffs Joel Stedman and Karen Joyce, the insurance carrier is blocking payments for Personal Injury Protection, or PIP, coverage for medical injuries.

PIP coverage usually comes with a promise that a third-party beneficiary or a first-party insured will be able to receive payments from the insurance carrier for medical expenses tied to bodily injuries sustained in a vehicle accident.

There are only four reasons that an insurance carrier offering PIP coverage can deny it in individual claims: if the treatment is unreasonable, unnecessary, not related to the accident, or not incurred within the three-year period after the accident.

According to the Progressive Insurance class action lawsuit, no other reasons exist that would enable a company to block PIP coverage to qualified victims.

However, as alleged in the Progressive PIP insurance class action lawsuit, first-party insureds and third-party beneficiaries report that they have had their benefit payments terminated by the insurance carrier once Progressive claims that person has achieved “maximum medical improvement.”

The plaintiffs in the Progressive class action lawsuit say they were injured in separate accidents.

In 2016, Stedman was allegedly injured in an accident with another party who had PIP coverage at the time of the crash which prompted him to open a claim for payments.

In 2014, Joyce says she had her own coverage through Progressive when she was hurt in a vehicle crash.

The Progressive Insurance class action was filed with respect to proposed Class Members who were first party insureds or third party beneficiaries of Progressive in the state of Washington who made a PIP claim and had it terminated or limited due to the company’s assessment that the victim had reached MMI.

As outlined in the Progressive class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs believe that they and other consumers were seriously harmed when the insurance carrier refused to act in good faith by making payments to first party insured persons and third party beneficiaries who were hurt in an accident and then made a claim for PIP payments.

The plaintiffs brought forward these allegations because they contend that they were not finished with the medical treatment for their injuries at the time the insurance company claimed the victims had achieved maximum medical improvement.

The Progressive Insurance class action lawsuit claims that the insurance carrier breached common law and statutory good faith duties, terminated, limited, or denied PIP coverage in violation of Washington state laws, and has misrepresented key facts or policy provisions.

The Progressive class action lawsuit seeks actual and consequential damages on behalf of Class Members as well as an injunction against the insurance company.

Plaintiffs Stedman and Joyce are represented by Duncan C. Turner of Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC and Randall C. Johnson Jr. of the Law Office of Randall C. Johnson PLLC.

The Progressive PIP Insurance Class Action Lawsuit is Joel Stedman and Karen Joyce, et al. v. Progressive Insurance Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-01254, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.