Reynolds v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company

In this case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiff Reynolds sued Progressive Direct Insurance Company after her vehicle was stolen and the insurer denied her claim. Progressive rescinded the policy, arguing that Reynolds materially misrepresented the vehicle's primary garaging address during the application process. Reynolds contended that any misstatement was innocent and filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith denial of coverage. On April 19, 2023, the court found that there were genuine disputes of material fact concerning whether the misrepresentation was knowingly made and whether it was material to the risk. Because a reasonable jury could rule for either party, the court denied both sides’ motions for summary judgment, requiring the case to proceed to trial.

The court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the intent and materiality of the misrepresentation, and allowed the case to continue toward trial.

Whether the insured's alleged misrepresentation regarding the vehicle's primary garaging address was both material and intentional, thereby justifying the insurer's rescission of the policy and its refusal to pay the theft claim.

The ruling reinforces the high evidentiary burden placed on insurance companies to demonstrate that a policyholder's misrepresentation was both intentional and material before rescinding coverage. It serves as a caution to insurers against overly aggressive claim denials and underscores consumer protections in first-party property insurance disputes.