Kentucky Couple Sue Progressive Over Coal Mine Subsidence

Whitfield, Crosby & Flynn recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of Val and Gwen Smith against Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. for violating the Kentucky Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act. The lawsuit was covered by the legal publication Law360

"The Smiths, since June 30, 2021, have continued to see progressive damage on their property on a continual basis, through the date of this complaint," the couple said, adding that they were also contacted by the Kentucky Division of Abandoned Mine Lands, which also sought to investigate potential mine subsidence.

The Smiths said the agency's contact, along with continual property damage, prompted them to ask Progressive to reopen their claim this past January.

Progressive agreed to conduct a second investigation, the Smiths said, alleging that the independent adjuster the insurer sent that month said he saw the "worst coal mine subsidence" he'd ever seen.

Later in January, Progressive also directed NV5 to review various state documents, which included a state request for bids relating to the "Gwen Smith Subsidence Project," the Smiths continued. "This bid proposal was submitted due to mine subsidence of the Smith property and the Commonwealth of Kentucky's desire to grout underneath the Smith property to potentially thwart future mine subsidence," the Smiths said. A contractor won the bidding process in October 2023 for a grouting project that cost more than $1.8million, according to Wednesday's complaint.

According to a copy of the insurer's claim denial letter, Progressive further pointed to exclusionsbarring coverage for "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settling, cracking of foundations,floors, walls or ceilings and existing damages."

"This is one of the most blatant cases of bad faith by an insurance company that I have seen in mycareer," John Whitfield, an attorney representing the Smiths, told Law360 in an emailed statement.

"Coal mine subsidence in the western part of Kentucky is a concern for homeowners, and that's why the Smiths wanted coverage for this type of thing," he added. "We look forward to exposing this in court here in Kentucky, as this is egregious."

The case is Smith et al. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., case number 4:24-cv-00079, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Chuck Flynn