In March 2025, a $48 million insurance settlement sent shockwaves through the auto insurance industry—and caught the attention of thousands of New York drivers. The Volino v. Progressive settlement centered on how Progressive calculated payouts for total loss claims, raising serious questions about fairness, transparency, and vehicle valuation practices.
At the heart of the case was an adjustment method that plaintiffs claimed quietly reduced claim payouts across the state. Many policyholders believed they were paid fairly—until this lawsuit revealed how valuations may have been systematically lowered.
This article is designed specifically for New York residents who filed total loss claims with Progressive, whether as policyholders or third-party claimants. If you ever received a settlement check that felt lower than expected, this case matters to you.
In this comprehensive guide, you’ll learn what the Volino v. Progressive case was about, how Projected Sold Adjustments (PSA) worked, who qualified for payments, how much people received, and what the outcome means for future insurance claims. Understanding this settlement helps you better protect your rights in any future Progressive insurance settlement or total loss valuation.
Case Background: What Is Volino v. Progressive?
The lawsuit, officially titled Volino et al. v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Company et al, was filed in July 2021. The case was brought by lead plaintiffs Dominick Volino and John Plotts, both New York drivers who alleged they were underpaid after their vehicles were declared total losses.
The defendants included multiple Progressive entities:
-
Progressive Advanced Insurance Company
-
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company
-
Progressive Max Insurance Company
-
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
The case was heard in the U.S.
Timeline of Key Events
-
July 2021 – Lawsuit filed alleging underpayment of total loss claims
-
2023 – Class certification approved
-
2024 – Mediation negotiations take place
-
March 2025 – Final settlement approval after fairness hearing
The plaintiffs argued that Progressive relied on a valuation method that did not reflect true market prices. Instead of paying the actual cash value required under New York law, they alleged the insurer used internal adjustments that reduced payouts.
Progressive denied wrongdoing but ultimately agreed to a substantial settlement to resolve the claims. The Volino v. Progressive Settlement became one of the most significant insurance class actions in New York involving vehicle valuation practices.
The Core Issue: Understanding Projected Sold Adjustments (PSA)
A Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA) is a downward pricing adjustment applied during vehicle valuation to estimate what a car would supposedly sell for in the open market. In this case, Progressive applied PSAs using Mitchell International’s WorkCenter Total Loss software, a valuation system widely relied upon by insurers to calculate settlement amounts for total loss claims.
How the Software Works
Mitchell’s WorkCenter system compiles vehicle values by reviewing comparable vehicle listings within a claimant’s local market. These listings typically reflect advertised prices for similar vehicles, adjusted for factors such as mileage, condition, and optional features. Under normal circumstances, these comparable listings are meant to represent a fair snapshot of market value.
However, Progressive applied a Projected Sold Adjustment that assumed vehicles would sell for less than their listed prices, even when there was no evidence of actual completed sales at those lower amounts. This reduction was applied across claims using a standardized formula rather than individualized market verification.
Why Plaintiffs Claimed PSAs Were Improper
The lawsuit alleged that PSAs:
-
Undervalued vehicles by an average of 6.5%
-
Were arbitrary and unexplained, with no transparent calculation method
-
Contradicted generally accepted appraisal standards
-
Misrepresented real-world market conditions
Plaintiffs argued that vehicle listing prices already account for negotiation and market behavior. Applying a blanket downward adjustment, they claimed, artificially reduced claim payouts and impacted tens of thousands of total loss claims across New York.
Progressive’s Defense
Progressive countered that the valuation software had been approved by the New York Department of Financial Services, that PSAs reflected real-world consumer purchasing behavior, and that no laws or regulations were violated. The company denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid prolonged litigation.
Real-World Examples
Lead plaintiff Dominick Volino alleged his settlement was reduced by $585.34, while John Plotts claimed a reduction of $802.67. These examples demonstrated how PSAs could materially affect payouts, forming the foundation of the Volino v. Progressive settlement dispute.
Settlement Details and Class Member Information
The settlement created a $48 million fund to compensate affected New York residents.
Who Was Affected?
Approximately 93,000 class members qualified for payments. The settlement divided them into two groups:
First-Party Class
-
Policyholders insured by Progressive
-
Claims between July 28, 2015 – August 20, 2024
Third-Party Class
-
Drivers hit by Progressive-insured motorists
-
Claims between July 28, 2018 – August 20, 2024
Eligibility Requirements
To qualify, class members had to:
-
Have a vehicle declared a total loss
-
Receive a valuation using Mitchell software
-
Have a PSA applied to their claim
Distribution Breakdown
-
$31.2 million distributed directly to class members
-
Remaining funds covered attorney fees and administration
Average Payments
-
Initial round: $383.16
-
Second round: $176.31
Payments varied based on claim value and whether funds remained unclaimed after the first distribution. The Progressive insurance settlement ensured proportional distribution rather than equal payouts.
Payment Timeline and Process
The settlement followed a clearly defined, court-approved timeline to ensure payments were distributed fairly and efficiently to eligible class members. After months of administration and verification, the process moved forward in multiple stages designed to account for unclaimed funds and address payment issues.
The final fairness hearing took place on March 5, 2025, where the court formally approved the settlement terms and authorized the distribution of funds. Shortly after approval, the settlement administrator prepared and mailed the initial settlement checks on May 12, 2025. These payments represented the first and largest distribution, with amounts based on each class member’s qualifying total loss claim and the presence of a Projected Sold Adjustment.
A second round of payments was issued on November 4, 2025. This redistribution occurred after accounting for uncashed or undeliverable checks from the first round. Only certain class members qualified for these additional payments.
Who Received Second Payments?
Second-round checks were sent only to class members who:
-
Cashed their initial settlement check
-
Did not opt out of the settlement
-
Had valid, updated mailing addresses on file
Unclaimed funds from the first distribution were proportionally reallocated among these eligible participants.
Important Note About Checks
All settlement checks included expiration dates. Any check not deposited within the stated timeframe became void, and those funds were not reissued. This marked the final distribution phase of the Volino v. Progressive settlement, permanently closing the case.
Legal Claims and Violations
The lawsuit against Progressive alleged multiple legal violations tied to how total loss claims were calculated and paid in New York. At the core of the case was the argument that Progressive’s valuation methods failed to meet contractual and statutory obligations designed to protect consumers.
Breach of Contract
Plaintiffs argued that Progressive breached its insurance contracts by not paying the actual cash value of totaled vehicles, as promised in policy language. By applying Projected Sold Adjustments that reduced valuations without clear justification, the insurer was accused of paying less than what policyholders were contractually owed under their coverage agreements.
New York General Business Law § 349
This consumer protection statute prohibits deceptive or misleading business practices. Plaintiffs claimed that Progressive’s use of PSAs misrepresented fair market value by presenting adjusted figures as objective and accurate, while allegedly concealing how and why values were reduced. This, they argued, deprived consumers of the ability to evaluate or challenge their settlement offers meaningfully.
Regulation 64
New York’s Regulation 64 governs claim settlement practices and requires insurers to use transparent, reasonable, and verifiable valuation methods. The lawsuit alleged that PSA reductions were inconsistent with these standards because they relied on assumptions rather than documented market data.
Why It Mattered
Insurance companies are legally required to base total loss settlements on real market evidence—not speculative adjustments that lower payouts. This case reinforced important consumer protections for New York drivers.
Comparison to Other Progressive Settlements
The Volino case was not isolated. Similar lawsuits were filed nationwide:
-
Alabama: Reynolds v. Progressive
-
Arkansas: Knight v. Progressive
-
Georgia: Separate PSA-related settlement
Each case involved alleged misuse of Projected Sold Adjustments to reduce total loss claim payouts.
Common Thread
Across states, plaintiffs challenged the same valuation methodology. These cases suggest a broader pattern rather than isolated errors.
Nationwide scrutiny has increased pressure on insurers to re-evaluate valuation practices following the Volino v. Progressive settlement.
What This Means for Future Claims
While the settlement did not require Progressive to admit wrongdoing, it sent a clear signal to the insurance industry. Insurers are expected to ensure that total loss valuations accurately reflect real-world market conditions rather than relying on unexplained or automatic downward adjustments. Even without a formal change mandate, settlements of this size tend to influence internal practices and compliance reviews.
For future claims, Progressive may refine how valuation software is applied, especially when determining a vehicle’s actual cash value. Claims adjusters are likely to face greater scrutiny, both internally and from regulators, to justify how final numbers are calculated. At the same time, consumers are now more informed and vigilant. Many policyholders know to request valuation reports, review comparable vehicles, and challenge figures that seem inconsistent with local market prices.
Regulators also face increased pressure to enforce transparency and ensure insurers comply with state valuation rules. Importantly, class members who accepted settlement payments waived future claims related to PSAs for past losses, while those who opted out preserved their individual legal rights.
Ultimately, understanding how your vehicle’s actual cash value is calculated remains critical when navigating any future total loss claim.
Final Thoughts
The Volino v. Progressive settlement marked a major moment for consumer protection in New York insurance law. By addressing how total loss claims were valued, the case highlighted the importance of transparency and fair market assessments.
While the settlement closed this chapter, its impact continues to shape insurer practices and consumer awareness. If you’ve ever questioned a vehicle valuation, this case shows why scrutiny matters.
Drivers should always review total loss calculations carefully and ask questions when numbers don’t add up. If you believe you were affected, contact the settlement administrator and keep informed about your rights in any future insurance claim.
FAQs
1. Can I still file a claim if I missed the deadline?
No. All claim deadlines have passed, and the settlement is closed.
2. What if I didn’t receive my payment?
Contact the settlement administrator to confirm eligibility and address status.
3. Do I have to pay taxes on the settlement?
Usually, no, as payments compensate for property loss, but consult a tax advisor.
4. Can I opt out now?
No. Opt-out deadlines expired before final approval.
5. What happens if I have a future total loss claim with Progressive?
Future claims are not covered, but this case increases transparency expectations.
