Thanks Pat. Today, I want to begin by talking about our Media Group and why we believe it is a competitive advantage for Progressive that would be incredibly challenging for our competitors to replicate in the near to medium terms. One of the distinct things about Progressive is that we buy almost all of our media using an in-house team. The media channels we buy include mass media like TV and radio, programmatic display, paid social media, direct mail and paid search. Virtually any type of advertising or demand generation that is purchased, our media team buys. We believe that this makes us unique, not just in the insurance industry, but advertising industry overall. This is not a new development. The decision to buy media in-house was made almost at the very beginning of our efforts in the direct channel in the mid-1990s. At that time, our demand generation efforts were focused on television and direct mail. But since then, our Media Group has evolved with the media landscape. As digital channels like programmatic display and paid social media have become more prominent, our media team has given appropriate focus to those areas. And using Progressive's risk learn, grow philosophy, we develop viewpoints on how to buy those media types efficiently. So our current capabilities are the result of an evolution of over three decades. Given how long we have been doing this and how ingrained the Media Group is within the company, it would be very challenging to assemble a team from scratch that would be able to efficiently deploy spend in all media channels and at our current scale. What are some of the advantages that having an in-house team gives us? Our focus relative to an external agency is very important. We focus on one brand and one small set of products. This allows for a level specialization that an external agency would be challenged to match. We are able to leverage one of Progressive's core strengths, which is analytics. Progressive has a very strong history and track record of analytical innovation. We draw on those capabilities and building our analytical team. Another advantage our in-house team has over an external agency is product knowledge. Our analysts typically come from other areas of the company. They understand our product. They understand the dynamics of the auto insurance market. They're able to bring the insurance context to how they look at media in a way that no external agency would be able to replicate. If you combine the focus with the analytics, the result is custom models built specifically for Progressive using first-party data we would never make available to an external third-party. All of our models are proprietary, using our data to evaluate only our brand and the products that we sell as opposed to a one-size-fits-all model for multiple clients that you might get using an external agency. This has been incredibly impactful. We have leveraged our analytical horsepower and first-party data to dig into all of our spend and determine the relative efficiency and lifetime value of all the different media channels. This then gives us a guide for the optimal places to spend more when adding budget and when reducing the budget, so we can optimize for Progressive specific needs. Progressive is a leader in segmentation for auto insurance pricing, it is similarly powerful when we bring these skills to how we buy media. Another advantage is the ability to quickly flex the budget. Our budget is flexible within controls, which I will talk about later in the presentation. We are willing to increase the budget if there is efficient opportunity and available margin within our calendar year 1996 combined ratio target to fund the additional spend. Also, if there is a need to reduce the expense ratio in order to hit our target 1996, we can do that quickly as well. Our analytics show us how to optimize sales, both when adding and when cutting. Furthermore, we are able to flex our budget up and down extremely quickly. Another advantage is that we have aligned incentives. Like other progressive employees, our media teams on our gainshare annual bonus program. So they benefit from the success of Progressive in a way that a media agency that is compensated on commission wouldn't. A media agency is primarily incented to encourage clients to spend more on media in order to increase commissions. Our media team is focused on the core strategies of Progressive, primarily profitable growth. We also have lower overhead costs than an equivalent program that relies on external media agencies. So not only are we buying the media smarter, but we are also doing it at a lower cost. A 5% commission on $2 billion in spend which is about what we spent at our peak in 2020 would be $100 million. Our team is less than 100 people with total annual cost for this team this team considerably lower than $100 million. Finally, and really cannot be overstated. Our team has very strong relationships with in Progressive that no external agency would be able to develop. While we work closely with our marketing team in the way most agencies would. We also work directly with state product managers and general managers as well as many other areas of the business. We also have a very firm understanding of the business that allows us to credibly show how what we do in the Media Group benefits Progressive. As I talk more about some of the accomplishments of the last decade, I think it would be unlikely that an outside agency would have been able to make the case to be as aggressive as we were leading up to our peak spend in 2020 and could an outside agency move as quickly to make cuts as we did in 2023. To summarize, we feel that our Media Group and the capabilities that we have built over 30 years have contributed greatly to Progressive success. I will talk specifically about the last decade and how we have been able to support Progressive's goal of growing as fast as possible at or below a '96. Before talking about progressive specific spend over the last decade, it is worth providing context about insurance industry ad spend over the last 30 years because it has shifted significantly over time. Progressive Direct and other directors became more aggressive in the mid-1990s, with the emergence of the direct-to-consumer business model for auto insurance. Which spurred strong growth in insurance and advertising spend. From 1996 to 2003, and there was 10% compound annual growth in Media spend. This is a high rate of growth, and yet that rate of growth increased about 50% from 2003 to 2011, with the compound annual growth rate rising to 15%. Between 2011 and 2017, industry ad spend slowed to only 2%, largely driven by agency distributed companies whose economic models didn't allow them to keep pace with the direct-to-consumer companies who continue to have double-digit growth rates during this time period. Starting in 2017, growth in advertising ramped up again from 2017 to 2021, the industry compound annual growth increased five times from the previous period to 10%. We will talk about some of the dynamics happening at that time that may have spurred the next round of growth. But there is a strong argument to be made that Progressive was the catalyst as we started spending more at this time and competitors followed suit. As we know, overall industry profitability issues in 2022 and 2023 led to a contraction in ad spend as the compound annual growth rate for those two years was negative 20%. That was the overall industry landscape. Now, let's talk about Progressive specifically. Prior to 2017, Progressive's media spend was under $700 million and we are consistently around 10% of total industry spend. In 2015 and 2016, we really hit our stride in using analytics to generate insights for how to buy media more efficiently. We were able to come up with a common metric between all media types that allowed us to better evaluate where our spend was efficient and where it wasn't. Also during this time, we were coming out of a hard market. Similar to today, we reacted in advance of the industry and aggressively raised rates, such that our loss ratios were trending below our '96 combined ratio target. As such, we had available margin to fund a higher level of spend as a percentage of premium, while keeping our combined ratio below '96. Starting in 2017 and continuing for the next three years, we were able to operationalize the advances in media efficiency, which allowed us to spend significantly more while still maintaining our target economics with the increased spend funded by available margin. We went from $650 million in spend in 2016 to almost $2 billion in 2020, a tripling in just four years. You will remember from earlier slides, that during that four-year period, there was also an increase in industry spend, which I hypothesized was spurred by our increase in spend. When we started to spend more, competitors noticed and also began spending more. This resulted in that period of growth from 2017 to 2021 for the industry. While our competitors did spend more during that time, we increased our media spend much faster than the industry. Resulting in an increase in our percentage of total industry spend from 11% in 2016 to 20% in 2020. To summarize, we tripled our spend in four years and almost doubled our share of the industry spend. When our losses are higher than target, we look to cut expenses with the goal of meeting our '96 combined ratio target until we have adequate rate. One of the largest and most flexible ways we can control our combined ratio is through the media budget. As severity trends rapidly steepened starting in 2021. We cut the Progressive media budget three years in a row from 2021 through 2023. Prior to this period, going back 30 years, we had never cut the budget two years in a row. So this was an unprecedented time as was the increasing size of the cuts. We went from almost $2 billion of media spend in 2020 to about $1.3 billion in 2023. These cuts happened at a time when the overall industry was cutting as well. So even with the significant cuts, the statutory data shows that we were the biggest vendor in industry in 2022 and 2023. And our share of the overall spend within the industry was almost flat. Going from 20% of spend in 2020 to 19% in 2023. All of these dynamics would have been impossible to manage without the capabilities of our in-house team. Our insights, analytics and relationships with the business allowed us to make the case for the increase in spend up to 2020 and then quickly cut significant amounts particularly in 2023 to support the overall company goal of hitting a '96. I've talked about the efficiency of our spend, but have not necessarily defined what that means. We do have a number of controls on our spend. The primary one is that our cost per sale has to be at or below our target acquisition cost. If that is the case, then we would say that the spend is beneficial. Cost per sale is our total acquisition costs divided by direct sales. Tamini is the largest part of our total acquisition costs. Other costs include the expenses related to running our call centers, development of our creative, maintaining and improving our online quote experience, the compensation of our marketing and media groups, among other things. Targeted acquisition cost is how much we charge customers for acquisition expenses over the life of their policy plus margin adequacy. It's the amount we price into the policy for acquisition. This amount is adjusted up or down based on where our margin is relative to targets. We need to make sure that the sales we are bringing in are at or below the acquisition expenses we price into our policies. That's the primary control in our spend, but there are others. Another constraint is that the direct auto lifetime combined ratio has to be at or below 96, meaning we have to be confident that that the new business we are writing in a state is going to meet our profitability target over the life of the policy. As we talked about in our second quarter 2023 Investor Relations call, direct channel policy acquisition costs are expensed in the first term of the policy and every subsequent term of the policy is collecting the premium necessary to cover the initial acquisition expense. If the acquisition expense is too high, such that the premium collected over the average lifetime does not cover initial acquisition expense, indemnity expense and other expenses, we shouldn't be spending money to acquire those policies. We need to be able to service our customers well. This is primarily for claims. There are times when the growth in the state is greater than our claims staffing can keep up with. So we will turn media off in order to slow demand and allow our staffing to catch up. Another constraint is our focus on achieving an aggregate company-wide calendar year combined ratio at or below a 96. We will not spend additional media dollars if our calendar year 96 target is under threat. Even if there may be opportunities for efficient media spend. And the final control on our spend is an efficient incremental cost per sale. That is a relatively new constraint. Incremental cost per sale is our measure of whether our spend is bringing in a quote or a sale that is over and above the ambient shopping rate. We are able to are able to measure that at a pretty granular level. And we are able to use that metric to evaluate efficiency within a channel as well as between channels. This chart shows the relativity of actual cost per sale versus the target acquisition cost. We want this metric to be at or below zero. At zero, it would mean that our actual acquisition cost is equal to our target acquisition cost. You can see that even during the run-up in spend from 2016 to 2020, that we kept cost per sale below the target in some years by as much as 15%. Even as we deployed three times the level of spend, we brought in enough sales to hit our target economics and for that extra spend to be completely paid for with the premium that was generated. 2023 was certainly an outlier given the size of the cuts. When we cut spend, we cut the least efficient areas first. After the cuts in 2023, we were left with only the most efficient spend as well as a relatively high level of ambient shopping due to the hard market. So cost per sale was significantly below the target acquisition cost in 2023. Even with a significant rise in spend 2024, the ratio has increased, but is still well below our targets. This means that so far in 2024, we are adding policies very efficiently. And this is true for two reasons. First, year-to-date, many of our competitors have remained at depressed levels of media spend. This means that we are able to get a large amount of media impressions for less. Additionally, when those impressions turn into quotes, we're converting them at a good pace, suggesting cost competitiveness. Another view of efficiency is to look at the upfront acquisition expenses as a percentage of the lifetime earned premium that is expected from the sales. From 2016 to 2020, our acquisition expenses as a percentage of premium went up, but stayed in the 7% to 7.5% range. As with the cost per sale versus target acquisition cost, this metric did fall as we made cuts in 2023 and is up in in 2024 as we've increased spend. Again, this suggests that 2024, even as we have significantly increased our media spend, we're still bringing in prospects at very high efficiency. We have shown cost per sale versus target acquisition cost in order to illustrate that even with the run-up in spend, we hit our target economics. This chart illustrates the benefit that we got from increased spend a little more clearly. This chart shows an index of media spend anchored to 2015 as a 1.0 on the horizontal axis and an index of direct auto sales anchored to 2015 on the vertical axis. Each dot represents a different year.You can see that even with the increase in spend, we were able to increase sales commensurately. As with the other charts, 2023 is an outlier. In previous calls, we were often asked about ambient shopping and how we gauge it. The 2023 number is a clear indication of the elevated amount of ambient shopping last year. Despite spending below 2019 levels, we sold more direct new policies than in any year in our history. This is because rates were rising across the industry, prompting customers to shop at and eventually purchase from Progressive. We have talked about how the budget cuts were a key tactic in helping Progressive hit the 1996 [ph] combined ratio in 2023. This chart shows acquisition expenses as a percentage of direct auto earned premium. You can see the increase in acquisition expense as a percentage of earned premium going from under 9% in in 2016 to almost 13% 2020. I had mentioned before that one of the keys to our ability to increase the spend the way that we did was available margin to be able to pay for the extra spend, while still hitting profit targets. As we reduce spend starting in 2021, the acquisition expense ratio dropped from 13% to just over 6% in 2023. This cut reduced the company-wide combined ratio by about 2.8 points in 2023 and was a big factor in our ability to exceed our 1996 calendar year target. Year-to-date 2024 we have increased spend, so now our acquisition expense ratio is back to about 10%. Note that the 2024 ratio on the chart is a year-to-date number. The first quarter acquisition expense ratio was below that of the second quarter. As margins continue to be strong, we will look for opportunities to grow the business as much as possible. While we only get statutory spend data annually, we do have some ways to gauge Progressive spend in relation to the rest of the industry during the year. There are a number of third-parties that provide a measure of what individual competitors are spending in select media channels. This chart shows an index created using iSpot data as a proxy for year-to-date TV spend and SensorTower's Pathmatics data as a proxy for year-to-date programmatic display and paid social media spend. We have set the Progressive spend at a 1.0 index and show the next four largest spenders in the insurance industry. You can see that based on this data, Progressive Media spending is considerably higher than others. Though this is only a partial picture of all the advertising done in the industry, it does provide a useful data point suggesting Progressive is outspending competitors by a significant margin. That increased spend is paying off as we are delivering the necessary sales to pay for that spend. This chart of spend versus sales is the same as the one I just showed, but each dot represents only the first half of year. You can see that 2024 is above the historic trend line with record spend and record sales. This chart suggests we are getting a strong return on our media spend to date. In conclusion, Progressive's in-house media team is a unique competitive advantage that has driven significant value for Progressive since the inception of the direct business. In the last decade, the media team has been instrumental in increasing media spend efficiently, which has resulted in greater market share. This team also plays a huge role in managing to our 1996 combined ratio through expense management and cutting spend to support the goal of a company-wide 1996 combined ratio. Today, the team is laser focused on profitable growth and is deploying record spend amounts in the first half of 2024, and this has produced the largest first half direct sales volume in our history. While we focus on the relationship between sales and media spend as a measure of efficiency, it is important to point out that many other areas of the company work in conjunction with our media team to deliver sales. Everything from the award-winning creative produced by our marketing team to industry-leading product and pricing make our jobs easier. Another key area is the team that received the online and we generate at the top of the funnel and converts it into quotes and sales. That team is the direct acquisition experience team, which has ownership of progressive.com and the online quote funnel. In the same way that the media team has evolved over decades, the acquisition experience team has been a competitive advantage for Progressive since we sold our first policy online over 25 years ago. My colleague, Dave Krew, leads that group and is going to speak to their part in the funnel. Dave?