Monday, 19 March 2018 10:17

$713,000 Lawsuit Against Progressive Filed by PA Shop Owner

Written by



In the Court’s opinion, “The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint do not give rise to a reasonable inference that Progressive specifically intended to interfere with Professionals’ contracts with its customers; rather, they give rise to a reasonable inference that Progressive sought to underpay Professionals for the repairs that Professionals performed on covered vehicles.”


Unjust Enrichment Claim

Progressive attempted to dismiss this claim for three reasons. First, it said the body shop did not confer any benefit on the insurance company. Second, the body shop didn’t accept any benefit allegedly conferred and third, Progressive said that express contracts govern the repairs that are at issue.


Professionals alleged that it conferred a benefit on the insurance in which Progressive accepted, which was to repair the vehicles covered under the insurance policies without being fully paid for the work. In court documents, the body shop also said it “properly pleaded unjust enrichment in the alternative to its breach of contract claims.”


The judge ruled that Professionals stated a plausible unjust enrichment claim and denied Progressive’s motion to dismiss this claim.


“Professionals conferred a benefit on Progressive by discharging Progressive’s obligations to pay for repairs under its policies. Progressive accepted and retained the benefit because it failed to fully compensate Professionals. Furthermore, it would be unjust for Progressive to retain this benefit,” court documents stated.


Progressive also argued that “…the doctrine of res judicata bars Professionals’ claims for intentional interference with business relations and unjust enrichment because Professionals asserted identical claims against Progressive in previous litigation in the Middle District of Florida.” 


In response, Professionals asserted that the individuals it is representing in this case are not included in the MDL. The court agreed and ruled that Progressive did not establish res judicata.


The legal information included in this article is based on information from court documents. Autobody News reached out to Progressive for comments, but none were provided.


Autobody News will continue to report on this case.

« Previous Page Continue reading