2025 Ohio 2449
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Davenport, Watts, and Cassi), Progressive insurance policyholders in Ohio, alleged Progressive systematically undervalued total-loss vehicle claims using an arbitrary 'projected sold adjustment' (PSA) in calculating actual cash value (ACV).
- Progressive determined ACV using reports from Mitchell International, which automatically reduced comparable vehicle values with a PSA based on data from J.D. Power, purportedly reflecting typical price negotiation below list price.
- Plaintiffs argued the PSA did not reflect real-world transaction data or modern car-buying practices, artificially reducing payouts for policyholders statewide.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class: all Ohio residents with Progressive total-loss claims, from 2014 forward, where the PSA was applied to at least one comparable vehicle in determining claim value.
- Progressive argued each claim required individualized valuation and that the PSA was based on 'hard data.' They challenged certification, asserting lack of predominance and that individual issues outweighed common questions.
- The trial court granted class certification; Progressive appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to rigorously analyze the motion and that predominance was not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court inappropriately accepted class allegations as true without rigorous analysis | Certification was supported by evidence and full briefing; trial court applied proper rigor | Trial court simply accepted allegations as true; failed to rigorously analyze | Court found the trial court conducted appropriate rigorous analysis |
| Whether common questions of law/fact predominate to support class certification | PSA used for all class members; validity of deduction is common, predominates | ACV calculations are individualized; PSA impact varies; predominance not met | Common challenge to PSA predominates; certification appropriate |
| Whether liability and damages can be determined on a class-wide basis without individualized inquiry | Only PSA deducting is challenged; damages calculation is formulaic by removing PSA | Actual damages/ACV are individual to each insured, so individualized inquiries predominate | Calculation of damages is straightforward; class action is superior |
| Whether the challenge to PSA is a common question of contract interpretation | All contracts similar; challenge is to the validity of one line-item used in all cases | Policies allow discretion in ACV; PSA is one of many possible adjustments | Validity of the PSA is a common, predominate legal and factual issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1998) (establishes Ohio's requirements for class certification under Civ.R. 23)
- Warner v. Waste Mgt., 36 Ohio St.3d 91 (Ohio 1988) (explains 'common nucleus of operative facts' for class actions)
- Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 12 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 1984) (courts should not decide merits at certification stage)
- Stammco, L.L.C. v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 231 (Ohio 2013) (trial court must rigorously analyze class certification, may probe merits to assess Civ.R. 23 prerequisites)