Progressive’s insured client made a left turn across my vehicle’s path at an intersection. My vehicle was subsequently determined to be totaled. The police report found Progressive’s client responsible.

I have a number of complaints regarding the methods employed and handling of this case by Progressive:

1) Although the police report placed full responsibility for the accident on their client, Progressive took the tact of suggesting that we might be “partially at fault.” They hinted that they were investigating a witness to the accident. In my opinion this was intended to test the waters to see how easily I might be manipulated, hoping to reduce the amount of compensation they might eventually pay out. It is very upsetting to have family members in an accident in the first place, but to have an outside party play these types of emotional chess games for the sole purpose of lessening their payout is deplorable. I had to consult with an attorney and spend time writing several letters before Progressive finally admitted that they had 100% liability. I should not have had to do this and feel empathetic for others who, I am sure have to endure similar tactics.

2) Another deceptive practice is being used by Progressive staff members. They explained that I would be compensated for the value of my vehicle based on its N.A.D.A. Blue Book retail price. That seemed logical, fair and reasonable to me. They added that there would be an adjustment to that figure for is “local market value.” Hearing this, I will admit that I wondered to myself if this adjustment might not be a little in my favor since the local market value of my all-wheel drive vehicle would certainly be higher in the northeast than in many other parts of the country where snow is less common.
A Valuation Report was transmitted to me by Progressive. I will use the base numbers provided to me for simplicity of discussion. Progressive’s Valuation Report showed the N.A.D.A. Blue Book value of my car to be $4, 150. To my dismay however, the report placed a “local market value” of $2135 on the car with small adjustments for extra equipment; I cannot replace my vehicle for $2135. For my final compensation Progressive apparently decided (arbitrarily) that it was appropriate to weight these numbers equally (averaging them.) I had the following exchanges with Progressive staff:
• I asked how this seemingly arbitrary number was arrived at and got the answer “That’s the way we do it.”
• I questioned the validity of the number and its relationship to reality and got, “We ran the computer program again and got the same number, therefore it is accurate.”
• I questioned their method and got, “Our methods are consistent with Connecticut Insurance Department standards.”
I strongly disagree with these methods and Progressive’s evasive “answers” to reasonable questions.

I found it necessary to take the time to research the retail price of similar vehicles in the local market and obtained a letter from a local car dealer stating that the value of my specific vehicle was actually between $5495 and $5995 (letter attached). This information was submitted to Progressive and has been chosen to be ignored.

3) Several days after Progressive staff members had explained to me that there could be no adjustments to the compensation, I received a phone call from them.
A staff member explained that they had not originally included certain additive adjustments, in the compensation. With these adjustments, they could get me closer to the final value that the N.A.D.A Blue Book value would yield. Although I was glad that that their hard position appeared to have softened. I was dismayed that these adjustments had not been suggested previously.

4) Most recently, Progressive has not returned my phone calls, responded to emails or requests for information. They have my vehicle and money I am due for compensation. They appear to be taking no steps to resolve my case. It seems that if I don’t agree, I get nothing at all.

The tactics employed on me involving this claim are very likely being employed on other citizens (for greater sums) who are less able to fight for themselves. It is wrong to have people being taken advantage of by scare tactics, arbitrary and unsubstantiated numbers, withholding of information, and finally being ignored.

I think that I have been reasonable. I would have gladly accepted the published N.A.D.A. retail value for my vehicle, (although I have proof that my car was worth more than that figure.) As a conscientious engineer, I have great difficulty accepting arbitrary numbers, whose basis can not be explained.

I have just submitted a compliant to the State Insurance Department. Hope that helps. Anyone have any other ideas?

David W. Harms