The $25,710 was Progressive’s valuation of Mary Paulding’s claim before lost wages, not the amount it offered to pay. An Oklahoma jury awarded $20 million for bad faith and another $20 million in punitive damages in August.
Progressive Direct, an auto insurer, offered Oklahoma policyholder Mary Paulding $710 after valuing her claim at $25,710; a jury later awarded her $40 million. The court said that valuation excluded lost wages, while the $710 offer matched the difference after the other driver’s insurer tendered its $25,000 policy limit. The August 7 verdict form records the jury’s finding that Progressive breached its duty to handle Paulding’s claim in good faith. The jury awarded $20 million for that breach, followed by $20 million in punitive damages. Progressive argued before trial that its offer was reasonably delayed because Paulding failed to send documents it needed; *Live Insurance News*, citing *Tulsa World*, reports that Progressive has since sought post-verdict relief.
Paulding was injured in a March 2022 motor vehicle accident. Through her attorney, she demanded underinsured motorist benefits from Progressive that August. The other driver’s insurer tendered its insured’s $25,000 policy limit to her. Progressive confirmed the tender in September 2022, according to U.S. Magistrate Judge Christine D. Little’s July 2026 order.
The 5 sources behind this story: 4 court records and 1 other source, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
Nearly a year passed between Paulding’s demand and Progressive’s offer. A Progressive adjuster received written confirmation of the $25,000 tender on July 31, 2023. The next day, the order says, she valued Paulding’s claim at $25,710 without accounting for lost wages. On August 2, she offered $710. The $710 offer equals the difference between the adjuster’s $25,710 valuation and the $25,000 the other driver’s insurer tendered. The $25,710 was not a finding that Progressive owed Paulding that amount under its policy.
The lost-wage distinction mattered because Paulding had added $930.43 in claimed wages to a revised demand in April 2023. Progressive had sought a completed wage verification form, which her attorney did not provide. Paulding asserted that the form was unnecessary because she had provided all the relevant timesheets, paystubs and calculations. Progressive’s $710 offer rested on a valuation that, the order says, did not account for those wages.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
Progressive argued before trial that it needed additional medical records, wage verification and written confirmation of the other insurer’s payment to evaluate the claim. Judge Little’s order also recounts repeated attempts to obtain Paulding’s recorded statement; it took place in February 2023, months after Progressive first requested it. The judge wrote that a reasonable jury *could* find Progressive’s delay justified by slow responses from Paulding’s prelitigation counsel. Paulding had not responded to the $710 offer before filing suit.
That was not the end of the judge’s analysis. Paulding pointed to evidence that Progressive completed its valuation without the additional chiropractic records or wage form it had requested. The insurer had also confirmed the other driver’s $25,000 tender long before the adjuster sought written confirmation. Judge Little held that a jury could find some or all of those requests did not justify delaying payment.
A second dispute concerned what the valuation counted. The order recounts the adjuster’s deposition testimony that, although she noted a disc herniation, she marked the question of permanent injury “not applicable” in her calculation and gave Paulding nothing for permanent injury. Judge Little treated that evidence as enough to let a jury decide whether Progressive had reasonably investigated and valued the claim. The ruling allowed the bad-faith claim and the request for punitive damages to reach trial; it did not itself decide either issue.
Paulding dismissed her separate breach-of-contract claim in July, according to the court docket. The August trial therefore put Progressive’s handling of the claim, rather than a contract award for unpaid benefits, before the jury.
The jury found for Paulding on bad faith. Its first verdict form also marks findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that Progressive recklessly disregarded its duty to deal fairly with her and intentionally breached that duty with malice. The second form set punitive damages at $20 million, equal to the first award. The docket records judgment on August 7.
**P&L translation:** for an insurance claims leader, the jury’s awards total $40 million on a case in which the disputed offer was $710. Judge Little’s July summary judgment order shows how both sides reached the jury: Progressive had evidence that requests went unanswered, while Paulding had evidence that the company ultimately valued the claim without some of what it said it needed. The ruling to watch for on the docket is the one on Progressive’s reported post-trial motions, which will show whether the jury’s $40 million in awards stands.
The readiness check has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the 2-minute readiness check →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.