Progressive insurance in court over selling total loss vehicle without salvage title

Van owner tries for class action status over mis-sold vehicle claims

Progressive insurance in court over selling total loss vehicle without salvage title

Legal Insights

By

When Lillian Louise Morgan Vogt purchased a Dodge Caravan van she later discovered that insurer Progressive had deemed it a total loss when its previous owner made a claim just four months before she bought it. Instead of issuing a salvage title,  Progressive was accused of telling its salvage vendor to obtain a clean title for the minivan – it then sold it to K&B Auto.  When Vogt bought the vehicle from K&B, she claimed that the vendor had mentioned ‘the clean title’ a number of times. After buying the minivan, she then felt that it drove strangely and had the vehicle assessed. That check showed that it had indeed been involved in an accident. Vogt then sued - arguing that this practice misled buyers into thinking they were purchasing vehicles free from salvage-related restrictions.

She filed claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and negligence per se against Progressive, seeking to represent a class of buyers who had unknowingly purchased similarly mistitled vehicles.

Vogt attempted to certify a class-action lawsuit, arguing that Progressive had a duty under Missouri law to apply for salvage titles for vehicles sold as total losses. The district court rejected the request, ruling that individual factors—such as whether buyers relied on the absence of a salvage title—varied too much to allow the case to proceed as a class action.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit agreed, stating that while some buyers may have been misled, others might have still purchased the vehicles even if they knew about the salvage status. The court emphasized that vehicles with salvage designations still hold value, whether for rebuilding or parts, and that each buyer’s decision-making process would need to be examined individually.

With the class action denied, Vogt’s claims may still proceed individually, but the ruling significantly reduces the potential financial exposure for Progressive and sets a precedent for future cases involving auto titling practices. Vogt has four remaining claims against Progressive: fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and negligence.

Related Stories

Keep up with the latest news and events

Join our mailing list, it’s free!