Scribd
Upload
4 views2 pages

Declaration

Matthew W. Dubyk, the Plaintiff, opposes Progressive's motion for summary judgment regarding his fire loss claim under a Businessowners Policy. He alleges Progressive misrepresented his coverage limits, failed to investigate the claim properly, and imposed unreasonable deadlines, causing financial hardship. The exhibits provided support his claims, including evidence of the actual coverage limits and the estimated costs of damages exceeding those limits.

Uploaded by

Maureen Olvis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views2 pages

Declaration

Matthew W. Dubyk, the Plaintiff, opposes Progressive's motion for summary judgment regarding his fire loss claim under a Businessowners Policy. He alleges Progressive misrepresented his coverage limits, failed to investigate the claim properly, and imposed unreasonable deadlines, causing financial hardship. The exhibits provided support his claims, including evidence of the actual coverage limits and the estimated costs of damages exceeding those limits.

Uploaded by

Maureen Olvis
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

PLAINTIFF’S DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY


JUDGMENT

I, Matthew W. Dubyk, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (or
applicable Pennsylvania state law) that the following is true and correct:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.


2. I purchased a Businessowners Policy from Defendant (Policy No. PGR944474088) to
cover my business, Greenworks Design / Gold Leaf Landscaping, located at 1208 Broad
Street, Perkasie, PA.
3. On or about April 29, 2023, I suffered a fire loss that damaged or destroyed a significant
amount of business personal property, including tools and equipment.
4. I promptly notified Progressive of the loss.
5. Despite my notification, Progressive failed to send an adjuster or any representative to
my property to inspect the physical damage or assist in documenting the loss.
6. During the claims process, a representative from Progressive verbally misrepresented my
coverage, informing me that my limit was only $5,000, when in fact my policy provided
a $10,000 limit for "Blanket Contractors Tools and Equipment".
7. Progressive closed my claim without a proper investigation.
8. When the claim was eventually reopened, Progressive imposed an unreasonable and
arbitrary 30-day deadline for me to provide a full itemized list of hundreds of damaged
items, many of which required professional cleaning and inspection estimates.
9. I have obtained an estimate from Moyer’s Service Group for cleaning and inspection
totaling approximately $20,000, which demonstrates that the value of the loss
significantly exceeds the blanket limits and the initial amounts discussed by Progressive.
10. The Defendant's failure to investigate and its misrepresentation of policy limits has
caused me financial hardship and prevented me from receiving the benefits for which I
paid premiums.

Exhibit Document Description Purpose / Key Point

Exhibit A Progressive Policy Proves the $10,000 Blanket


Declarations Limit and $2,000 per-item
limit actually existed.

Exhibit B Equipment List & Moyer’s Proves the


Estimate cleaning/inspection costs
alone are $20,000, exceeding
the blanket limit.

Exhibit C Correspondence re: $5,000 Evidence that Progressive


Limit misrepresented the limit to
you.
Exhibit D Plaintiff’s Declaration Your sworn testimony
regarding the lack of an on-
site adjuster.

Exhibit E Discovery Responses Shows discovery is "In


Process" and Summary
Judgment is premature.

Matthew W. Dubyk

Dated: __________

You might also like