Macy’s furniture buyers who purchased a WorryNoMore protection plan and had a claim denied may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Macy’s and plan administrator Tarmo LLC sold the plan as broad coverage while Tarmo routinely denied valid claims. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Macy’s, Inc. and Tarmo LLC have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Macy’s, Inc. and Tarmo LLC, the company that administers Macy’s WorryNoMore furniture protection plan, were sued in a proposed class action on September 9, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case, Oliver v. Macy’s, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-07824, alleges Macy’s sells the plan at the register as worry-free coverage for stains, tears and broken parts while Tarmo uses vague fine-print exclusions and a confusing claims website to turn down claims the plan says are covered.The proposed class is everyone nationwide who filed a WorryNoMore claim and was denied. Macy’s and Tarmo have not yet responded, and none of the allegations has been tested in court.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What Macy’s Promises at the Register
WorryNoMore is offered at checkout when a customer buys a sofa, chair, bed, mattress or table at Macy’s. The complaint says the price is a percentage of the furniture’s cost, so the plan often runs several hundred dollars, and that Macy’s trains and rewards its sales associates to push it.According to the complaint, in-store shoppers get a “Coverage Highlights” brochure that promises five years of protection for a long list of problems, including accidental stains and pet stains, rips, tears and punctures, loose seams and stitching, cracked or peeling leather, broken wood and glass, structural failures, reclining mechanisms, and defective motors, heaters and massagers. The brochure lists no exclusions and never mentions “wear and tear,” the lawsuit says, and buyers do not see the full terms and conditions until after the sale.
How Claims Allegedly Get Denied
The written plan, which the complaint says Tarmo drafted, covers accidental stains and damage and structural failures caused by defects in materials or workmanship. It also excludes “wear and tear,” “gradual deterioration,” “loss of resiliency” and “cosmetic damage.” The lawsuit argues those terms are vague enough that, read aggressively, they swallow nearly everything the brochure promises, and that Tarmo reads them that way.The complaint also takes aim at Tarmo’s online claims portal. It alleges the portal:
- opens by asking whether the problem happened during or before delivery, a question the complaint says is irrelevant to most covered claims
- offers only “Stain” or “Damage” as the type of issue, with no option for a structural or mechanical failure
- asks for a cause from a list that includes “wear and tear” and “normal use” but not “accident” or most of the problems listed in the brochure
- feeds those menu choices into automated or AI-driven systems that issue standard denials without meaningfully reading the buyer’s written description
The Named Plaintiff’s Mattress Claim
The named plaintiff, a Maryland resident, says she bought a queen mattress, box spring and Bedgard mattress encasement at a Macy’s store in New York City in September 2019 and paid $94 for a WorryNoMore plan after a sales associate showed her the brochure and told her accidental stains were covered. Her plan terms specifically cover “ALL Accidental Stains” on the mattress, excluding only a gradual buildup of dirt, oils and perspiration.When she found a single accidental stain on the mattress in September 2023, the complaint says the portal gave her no option to describe it as one, so she chose “accumulation of stains” as the closest fit, and the claim was denied as accumulation or normal use. After she disputed it, she says she was told the stain was covered but “soiling” was not, then received a new claim number, then a denial for filing more than 15 days after discovery, and finally a phone denial saying her photos did not show a stain.
The Legal Claims and What the Case Asks For
The lawsuit asserts unjust enrichment and breach of contract against both companies, and claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 (deceptive practices) and 350 (false advertising) against Macy’s, which it says makes its WorryNoMore decisions from its New York headquarters.It asks for restitution, including refunds of what buyers paid for their plans and the value of claims that were denied, plus compensatory, treble and statutory damages, an order stopping the alleged practices, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff is represented by Reese LLP and KalielGold PLLC.
What WorryNoMore Buyers Can Do Now
There is nothing to file. A class has not been certified, and there is no settlement or claim form. Buyers who had a WorryNoMore claim denied may want to keep their furniture receipt, the plan’s terms and conditions, claim numbers, denial emails and any photos they submitted, in case the case settles or a class is certified later.This case is unrelated to the earlier Macy’s CVC sheets settlement, which involved bedsheets sold as 100% cotton.
What Happens Next?
As of October 1, 2026, the docket showed the complaint, the civil cover sheet, the plaintiff’s corporate disclosure statement, routine case-opening notices from the clerk and, on September 16, an order scheduling an initial pretrial conference. Neither Macy’s nor Tarmo has filed a response.Read the Complaint
The full Oliver v. Macy’s, Inc. complaint is embedded below:Oliver v. Macy’s, Inc. — Class Action Complaint (PDF, September 9, 2026)
Questions
Who is included in the Macy’s WorryNoMore lawsuit?
The proposed class is consumers nationwide who filed a claim under the WorryNoMore plan and had it denied, within the applicable statute of limitations. The court has not certified any class, so for now this is only the group the plaintiff asks to represent.
What does the lawsuit say is wrong with the WorryNoMore plan?
The complaint alleges that Macy’s in-store brochure promises five years of coverage for stains, rips, loose seams, broken frames, recliner mechanisms and other problems without listing exclusions, while Tarmo relies on vague fine-print exclusions such as wear and tear, loss of resiliency and cosmetic damage, and uses a claims portal whose menus allegedly steer buyers into answers that lead to denial. Macy’s and Tarmo have not responded in court, and none of these allegations has been proven.
What does the lawsuit ask for?
It seeks restitution, including refunds of what buyers paid for WorryNoMore plans and the amounts of claims that were denied, along with compensatory, treble and statutory damages under New York consumer protection law, an order stopping the alleged practices, and attorneys’ fees.
My WorryNoMore claim was denied. Is there anything to file now?
No. The case was filed on September 9, 2026, no class has been certified and there is no settlement or claim form. Buyers who had a claim denied may want to keep their purchase receipt, plan terms, denial emails and photos in case the case later settles.
Is this the same as the Macy’s sheets settlement?
No. The earlier Macy’s settlement involved CVC sheets sold as 100% cotton. The WorryNoMore lawsuit is a new, unrelated case about the furniture protection plan and has not produced any settlement.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint — Oliver v. Macy’s, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-07824 (filed September 9, 2026): Complaint (PDF)• Docket for Oliver v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-07824 (S.D.N.Y.), via CourtListener: CourtListener Docket
