Progressive wants out. It says a DoorDash run means its policy never covered a Minnesota crash, and it wants a federal court to agree.
In a declaratory judgment complaint filed June 1, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, Progressive Preferred Insurance Company asked the court to rule that it owes nothing – no defense and no payout – for a crash that happened while its insured's car was being used for food delivery.
The accident took place on October 6, 2024, according to the filing. A 2017 Mazda owned by Isabel Tigre and driven by Brady Thomas allegedly hit a vehicle driven by Terri Benhardus while the Mazda was turning left through an intersection. Benhardus has sued Thomas and Tigre over the crash in Stearns County, Minnesota. Progressive calls that suit the Liability Action, and says it has been served but not yet filed.
The sticking point for the carrier is what Thomas was doing behind the wheel. Progressive alleges he was logged into the DoorDash app and using the Mazda to make deliveries when the crash happened. That, the insurer says, triggers the business-use exclusion in the personal auto policy it issued to Tigre.
The policy wording drives the case. The exclusion cuts off coverage when a vehicle is used "to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee," for "retail or wholesale delivery, including, but not limited to, the pickup, transport, or delivery of magazines, newspapers, mail, or food," for "ride-sharing activity," or for "delivery service activity." Progressive leans on three of those prongs and says each one, on its own, knocks out coverage.
For claims teams, it is the gig-economy gap in plain sight. A personal auto policy is built and priced for personal driving. The moment the insured turns the car into a delivery vehicle, the carrier's argument is that the risk shifted and the personal policy never reached it. Progressive wants the court to draw that line clearly.
The complaint asks for a declaration that the policy covers nothing for the October 6, 2024 crash, and that Progressive has no duty to defend or indemnify Tigre or Thomas against Benhardus's claims.
These are allegations. Progressive's complaint has not been tested in court, the defendants have not responded, and no court has ruled on whether the exclusion applies.
