Progressive Express Insurance loses appeal over bad faith claims handling in multi-party crash case
An insurer’s attempt to settle a multi-claimant case went nowhere fast—and Florida’s appeals court says that wasn’t good enough
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal has sided with a lower court in a case scrutinizing how Progressive Express Insurance Company managed multiple claims stemming from a single accident. The decision, issued May 28, 2025, leaves in place a trial court ruling from Miami-Dade County without offering a detailed written opinion.
At the center of the appeal was Progressive’s challenge to a ruling in favor of Olivia Oney. The appellate court affirmed the decision per curiam, meaning without a written opinion explaining the rationale. While the court did not provide case-specific facts, it cited established case law that outlines how insurers are expected to handle claims when more than one party is involved in a single incident.
Among the precedents the court leaned on was Harmon v. State Farm, which notes that insurers generally have the right to enter into reasonable settlements when facing multiple claims from the same event. The reasoning is that such settlements encourage compromise and speed up resolution.
The ruling also referenced Aldana v. Progressive American Insurance Co., a federal case that criticized Progressive’s lack of urgency in pursuing a global settlement more than four months after a collision. That case found that the company failed to act “with any haste” in trying to resolve the matter.
Other cited decisions, including Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau and Moultrop v. GEICO, reinforced that the reasonableness of an insurer’s approach to settling claims can depend on a wide range of factors—and may ultimately be a question for a jury. The court also echoed the Florida Supreme Court’s statement in Harvey v. GEICO that the focus in a bad faith case must remain on the insurer’s actions in fulfilling its obligations to the insured, not on what the claimant may have done.
The appellate opinion did not include details of Progressive’s insurance policy or any of the claimants’ actions in the underlying case. No dollar amounts, accident dates, or other factual specifics were included in the brief decision.
While the decision is not yet final—it remains subject to a motion for rehearing—it serves as another clear signal from Florida courts: insurers must be both timely and reasonable in their claim settlement practices, particularly when multiple parties are involved. For insurance professionals, especially those managing liability claims, the ruling underscores the continued importance of following established legal standards when navigating complex settlement decisions.
An insurer’s attempt to settle a multi-claimant case went nowhere fast—and Florida’s appeals court says that wasn’t good enough
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal has sided with a lower court in a case scrutinizing how Progressive Express Insurance Company managed multiple claims stemming from a single accident. The decision, issued May 28, 2025, leaves in place a trial court ruling from Miami-Dade County without offering a detailed written opinion.
At the center of the appeal was Progressive’s challenge to a ruling in favor of Olivia Oney. The appellate court affirmed the decision per curiam, meaning without a written opinion explaining the rationale. While the court did not provide case-specific facts, it cited established case law that outlines how insurers are expected to handle claims when more than one party is involved in a single incident.
Among the precedents the court leaned on was Harmon v. State Farm, which notes that insurers generally have the right to enter into reasonable settlements when facing multiple claims from the same event. The reasoning is that such settlements encourage compromise and speed up resolution.
The ruling also referenced Aldana v. Progressive American Insurance Co., a federal case that criticized Progressive’s lack of urgency in pursuing a global settlement more than four months after a collision. That case found that the company failed to act “with any haste” in trying to resolve the matter.
Other cited decisions, including Farinas v. Florida Farm Bureau and Moultrop v. GEICO, reinforced that the reasonableness of an insurer’s approach to settling claims can depend on a wide range of factors—and may ultimately be a question for a jury. The court also echoed the Florida Supreme Court’s statement in Harvey v. GEICO that the focus in a bad faith case must remain on the insurer’s actions in fulfilling its obligations to the insured, not on what the claimant may have done.
The appellate opinion did not include details of Progressive’s insurance policy or any of the claimants’ actions in the underlying case. No dollar amounts, accident dates, or other factual specifics were included in the brief decision.
While the decision is not yet final—it remains subject to a motion for rehearing—it serves as another clear signal from Florida courts: insurers must be both timely and reasonable in their claim settlement practices, particularly when multiple parties are involved. For insurance professionals, especially those managing liability claims, the ruling underscores the continued importance of following established legal standards when navigating complex settlement decisions.