AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff owned a car insured by Progressive, which included liability, comprehensive, and collision coverage. Upon purchasing an SUV, the Plaintiff contacted Progressive to add the SUV to his policy but requested to modify his existing car's coverage to liability only, as he planned to sell it. Progressive updated the insurance documents accordingly. After the car was stolen and recovered with damages, Progressive denied coverage for the theft, stating the car was not insured for comprehensive coverage at the time of the theft.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that he relied on Progressive's website statements indicating "experts are only a phone call away," which he claimed created a duty for Progressive to advise him on the effects of his requested coverage changes. He submitted screenshots of the website and an affidavit stating he did not intend to remove theft coverage from his policy.
• Defendant (Progressive): Filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims, arguing that there was no evidence of detrimental reliance by the Plaintiff on Progressive's statements, nor a duty to advise the Plaintiff about the effects of changing his coverage as requested.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment by dismissing the Plaintiff's UPA claim for lack of evidence of detrimental reliance on Progressive's allegedly false statements.
• Whether Progressive owed a duty to advise the Plaintiff about the effects of changing his coverage as requested.
• Whether Progressive breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to adequately inform the Plaintiff of the changes made to his coverage.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Progressive on the Plaintiff's claims for violation of the UPA and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing was affirmed.

Reasons

• BOGARDUS, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the Plaintiff's UPA claim failed due to a lack of evidence showing detrimental reliance on Progressive's statements and a lack of causation between the alleged deceptive practice and the Plaintiff's damages (paras 7-15).
  It was determined that Progressive did not owe a duty to advise the Plaintiff about the effects of his requested modification of coverage. The court distinguished the present case from Salas v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co., noting that Progressive had fulfilled any duty of disclosure by providing updated insurance documents to the Plaintiff (paras 16-19).
  The court concluded that Progressive did not breach the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The updated insurance documents provided to the Plaintiff were deemed sufficient to inform him of the changes to his coverage, specifically the removal of comprehensive coverage as he had requested (paras 23-26).