GEICO defeated a bid to certify a class action over its New Jersey totaled-vehicle payouts, while Jessica Dinicola-Ortiz was allowed to pursue her individual underpayment claim.
Renée Marie Bumb, chief judge in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, concluded that resolving the proposed claims would require evidence specific to each vehicle and payment. The ruling prevents the proposed claims from proceeding collectively but leaves Dinicola-Ortiz’s allegation of underpayment unresolved.
Dinicola-Ortiz alleged that GEICO’s condition adjustment unlawfully reduced the actual cash value, or ACV, payable under its policies. She maintained that similar adjustments affected potentially tens of thousands of other New Jersey claimants. That alleged reach did not overcome the requirement to establish each proposed class member’s vehicle value and any shortfall in payment.
GEICO paid Dinicola-Ortiz $16,572.47. Renée Marie Bumb found her allegation that this was below her vehicle’s ACV sufficiently plausible for the individual claim to continue. That finding allows the claim to proceed; it does not establish that GEICO underpaid her.
At issue is a condition adjustment used in calculating the amount payable for a totaled vehicle. GEICO’s policy defines ACV by reference to replacement cost after deducting depreciation or betterment. Its valuations use reports from CCC Intelligent Solutions, which begins with average retail prices for vehicles matching the insured vehicle’s make, model and year. Comparable vehicles are drawn from recent sales or listings in the insured’s geographic area, with adjustments for options, mileage and other factors.
Other insurers also use a condition-adjustment factor. Renée Marie Bumb’s reasoning required each proposed class member to establish both the vehicle’s ACV and a payment below that amount. The shared valuation practice did not remove the need for that individual evidence.
Renée Marie Bumb relied on two recent federal appeals rulings. In the 2024 case Lewis v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that standing required payment below the vehicle’s ACV. A defect in the insurer’s process alone did not establish the actual injury needed to bring a claim.
In Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. in 2025, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that determining the insurer’s contractual obligation and whether it had underpaid required evidence specific to each claimant. Those individual questions predominated over issues common to the proposed class.
Renée Marie Bumb applied that reasoning to the GEICO case, concluding that separate assessments of each vehicle’s value and payout would eliminate the efficiencies of a class action. Dinicola-Ortiz’s individual claim can proceed, with the dispute centring on whether GEICO’s $16,572.47 payment was below her vehicle’s actual cash value.
