AMBROSIO, ET AL. V. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
Former Progressive auto-insurance customers challenged the company’s use of a “Projected Sold Adjustment” (PSA), a downward deduction applied to comparable-vehicle prices in total-loss valuations. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that individual damages questions predominated and therefore affirmed the denial of class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether claims challenging Progressive’s use of the Projected Sold Adjustment (or similar downward valuation deductions) can be certified as a Rule 23(b)(3) class or whether individualized ACV damages inquiries predominate.
Circuit Positions
Class certification is inappropriate; individualized proof of each vehicle’s actual cash value predominates over common questions.
Class certification may proceed because the PSA deduction is a common, facially unlawful methodology that can be addressed with class-wide proof; denial of Rule 23(f) review leaves certification intact.
Conflict Summary
Several circuits (3d, 4th, 7th, and now the 9th) hold that PSA-based breach-of-contract actions cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) predominance because each insured must prove an individualized undervaluation. Other circuits have allowed certification to stand (10th and 11th Circuits denied §1292(b)/Rule 23(f) review, leaving district-court certifications in place), reflecting a view that the challenged PSA methodology itself provides common proof of liability and damages.