Progressive Offered $1,737 for My Grandmother's Buick. The Final Award Was $7,610.

After the July 28, 2025 hailstorm in Billings, Montana, Progressive declared our 1993 Buick Park Avenue a total loss.

This was not just an old car to our family. It was my grandmother’s car. It had been well cared for, had under 90,000 miles, and was in the kind of original condition that is hard to find anymore. It had sentimental value, but it also had real market value. It was not a worn-out vehicle at the end of its life. It was a clean, low-mileage, well-preserved car that deserved to be valued fairly.

Progressive’s initial valuation was approximately $1,737.67.

That number was shocking. It did not reflect the condition, mileage, history, or realistic replacement value of the vehicle. It felt like they were treating my grandmother’s Buick as just another old sedan instead of looking at the actual car in front of them.

I pushed back and asked for the support behind the valuation. What I found made the situation even more concerning.

Progressive’s valuation relied in part on dealer-attributed quotes. One of those quotes was attributed to GM of Butte. I contacted the dealership directly and obtained a sworn affidavit stating that no valuation was provided, approved, or authorized by that dealership, and that the figures attributed to them were false.

To me, that should have stopped everything.

Instead, Progressive continued to stand behind the valuation process and pointed to its third-party vendor, Mitchell. But what I received was not quote-level proof. It did not show who allegedly contacted the dealership, who allegedly provided the quote, when it happened, what vehicle information was provided, or whether the dealership confirmed anything in writing.

A vague vendor explanation does not outweigh a sworn affidavit from the dealership itself.

That is when this stopped feeling like a normal disagreement over value and started feeling like bad-faith claim handling. Whether intentional or not, Progressive was relying on an unsupported dealer-attributed valuation that the alleged source directly contradicted.

I also learned how difficult the process can be for a policyholder. The burden shifted onto me to prove Progressive’s number was wrong. I had to question the sources, contact dealerships, obtain sworn evidence, research comparable vehicles, challenge the market area, file a complaint, hire outside help, and go through appraisal just to get the claim reviewed fairly.

That is not how the process should work for a Montana consumer.Insurance companies have experience, vendors, adjusters, valuation tools, and legal teams. Most consumers do not. When an insurer presents a total-loss number, many people assume they have no choice but to accept it. I almost can’t imagine how many people take the first offer simply because they do not know how to fight back or cannot afford to.

In my case, I was fortunate enough to keep pushing. I hired Anthony Drahos and Teak Claim Consultants, and that changed everything.

Anthony understood this was not just about an old Buick. He understood the condition, mileage, local market, and actual replacement reality mattered. He also understood that a consumer should not have to accept an unsupported number just because an insurance company says it is the value.

Teak brought experience, structure, and credibility to the fight. They challenged the valuation, helped move the claim through appraisal, and stood firm when Progressive’s position still did not reflect the actual vehicle.

Progressive’s own appraiser later valued the Buick at $3,483. That was still far below what I believed the car was worth. After the appraisal process and umpire review, the final award set the value at $7,610.

That was more than four times Progressive’s original valuation.

The appraisal process proved what I had been saying from the beginning: the original offer was nowhere close to fair.

But getting there came at a cost. I had to spend time, energy, and money to correct a valuation I believe was built on unsupported and false dealer-attributed information. I incurred $1,450 in appraisal-related fees just to get the claim evaluated in a way that reflected the actual vehicle we owned.

My warning to other Montana consumers is simple: do not assume the first total-loss offer is correct.

Ask for the documents. Verify the sources. Ask what market area was used. Ask whether the comparable vehicles truly compare to yours. If a dealer quote is used, ask who gave it, when it was given, and whether the dealership will confirm it. If the number does not feel right, push back.

Insurance companies should not be able to rely on unsupported dealer-attributed valuations, shift responsibility to a third-party vendor, use markets that do not fairly reflect the consumer’s local replacement market, and then force the policyholder to spend their own money to correct the claim.

This was my grandmother’s car. It mattered to our family. It deserved to be treated with honesty, respect, and a fair valuation.

I am extremely grateful to Anthony Drahos and Teak Claim Consultants for helping me stand up to Progressive’s valuation process and for helping bring the claim back to reality. Without Teak’s help, I believe Progressive’s original unsupported offer may have been the end of the road.

Instead, the final award proved the fight was worth it.