Narcisse v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
1:23-cv-04690
S.D.N.Y.Apr 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Jeanine Narcisse and Pamela Palaszynski, as proposed class representatives, allege Progressive insurers undervalued total-loss vehicle claims by applying a "Projected Sold Adjustment" (PSA), reducing payouts to vehicle lienholders.
- Narcisse had GAP insurance, so when Progressive’s payment didn’t cover her loan, her GAP insurer paid the remaining balance; Palaszynski did not have GAP insurance and remained personally liable for the deficiency until repaying her loan.
- Plaintiffs argue the PSA is outdated and does not reflect current dealer practices or market realities, resulting in systematically lower claims payouts.
- The primary legal claims are breach of contract (insurance policy) and violation of N.Y. General Business Law § 349 (deceptive practice).
- Defendants moved to dismiss Narcisse's claims, arguing lack of Article III standing (no injury in fact) and failure to state a claim (no damages) under FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injury in Fact/Standing | Breach of contract alone is concrete injury; she did not get full benefit of the bargain regardless of GAP insurer’s role | No injury because insured got no less than owed to her lender; GAP insurer, not plaintiff, bore the loss | Plaintiff has standing; breach itself is concrete injury |
| Redressability | Compensatory or nominal damages can redress the claimed underpayment | No redress possible as any shortfall was already satisfied by GAP insurer | Compensatory and nominal damages are available and redress injury |
| Contract Damages | Alleged underpayment under policy meets damages requirement even if repaid by GAP | No damages because plaintiff is no longer personally liable | Plaintiff adequately alleges damages or nominal damages |
| GBL § 349 Injury | Deceptive use of PSA caused an actual (though possibly non-monetary) injury through deprivation of contractual benefits | No actual injury under GBL § 349 since GAP insurance covered shortfall | Plaintiff sufficiently alleges actual injury under GBL § 349 |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (articulates the injury-in-fact requirement for standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (establishes elements of Article III standing)
- Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (plaintiff has standing even if owed funds only reduce existing debt)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for plausibility on a motion to dismiss)
- Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538 (distinguishes standing in contract benefit cases)