No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

More documents

Recommendations

Info

while the repair was accomplished. R. 7174-77. Mathur admitted that not every class member was entitled to installation damages. R. 7179. A class member could receive installation damages only if at least one non-OEM part on his estimate was actually installed on his car, and only if he still had the car and the part. Id. Mathur testified that installation damages for the entire class — assuming that every class member had received at least one non-OEM part, still owned the vehicle, and would have it repaired in two days, while renting a car at an average rate of $51 — would total $1,316,900,000. R. 7178. Mathur conceded, however, that this estimate was too high, and he attempted to reduce it in light of the admitted fact that many non-OEM parts that were specified were never installed on class members’ vehicles. Mathur guessed that somewhere between 50% and 92% of the non-OEM parts specified on estimates had actually been installed. R. 7183. Based on that guess he offered a range of damages estimates between a “low” of $658,450,000 and a “high” estimate of $1,211,500,000 — an astonishing $550 million swing. R. 7187-89. On cross-examination Mathur conceded that these estimates should have been reduced to take into account other relevant factors. For example, he admitted that his estimate did not take into account the undoubtedly substantial number of class members who no longer owned vehicles on which non-OEM parts had been installed. R. 7227-38. He also simply assumed that every vehicle on which non-OEM parts had been installed was not restored to pre-loss condition and that every non-OEM part would have to be replaced. R. 7226. Mathur testified that the reason he had not made any further reductions to his estimate was that he lacked the data necessary to adjust it on a classwide basis. R. 7232-36. At the -78-
end of the day, Mathur conceded that he had not estimated damages with any reasonable degree of certainty: Q: So, when [plaintiffs’ counsel] asked you whether the figures that you gave to this jury were, every time, as conservative as you could make them, the fact is that the figure that you gave to this jury has to be reduced over and over and over again, by your own admission; isn’t that right, sir? A: That is correct. R. 7256. In fact, he conceded that his figures might be off by as much as a billion dollars. R. 7238 (Q: “[is it] possible that they are off by as much as a billion dollars?” A: “That is possible”). It is hard to imagine expert testimony that is more contrary to the basic, black letter rule that damages cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. See Brown v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 162 Ill.App.3d 926, 937-38 (1st Dist. 1987) (Although “expert testimony couched in terms of probabilities or possibilities based on assumed facts is admissible, . . . this rule does not lessen the need for a reasonable degree of certainty. It is manifestly unfair to hold [defendant] liable for injuries which [plaintiff’s] own experts admit are problematical”). Because Mathur was unable to make even a wild guess as to how many class members were entitled to installation damages, he could only speculate about the cost of buying new OEM parts, the labor costs of installing those parts, and the car rental costs during the repair; yet he opined that these amounted to up to $ 1.2 billion. Mathur had no way of telling, however, how many class members actually had non-OEM parts installed, or how many of those class members still owned those cars, so he could not know how many class members could conceivably be in a position to have OEM parts installed. And because Mathur did not know which non-OEM parts (which could range from a headlamp -79-
Page 1 and 2:
No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COUR
Page 3 and 4:
Charles Hester Enters. v. Illinois
Page 5 and 6:
In re Fibreboard Corp., 893 F.2d 70
Page 7 and 8:
State v. Piedmont Funding Corp., 38
Page 9 and 10:
Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940
Page 11 and 12:
1. Plaintiffs’ Body Shop Witnesse
Page 13 and 14:
People v. Clayton, 302 Ill.App.3d 2
Page 15 and 16:
VPHI, Inc. v. National Educ. Traini
Page 17 and 18:
Okada v. MGIC Indem. Corp., 823 F.2
Page 19 and 20:
Zekman v. Direct Am. Marketers, Inc
Page 21 and 22:
Malooley v. Alice, 251 Ill.App.3d 5
Page 23 and 24:
NATURE OF THE CASE This is an appea
Page 25 and 26:
STATUTES INVOLVED Relevant portions
Page 27 and 28:
to its “pre-loss condition.” DX
Page 29 and 30:
OEM parts. 5/ At least two states
Page 31 and 32:
paid the difference in cost out of
Page 33 and 34:
epair estimate specified only OEM p
Page 35 and 36:
potential class members whose names
Page 37 and 38:
member’s vehicle other than those
Page 39 and 40:
William Anderton, who had previousl
Page 41 and 42:
categorically inferior and, in fact
Page 43 and 44:
specified on their repair estimates
Page 45 and 46:
Second, plaintiffs sought “instal
Page 47 and 48:
parts] are inferior.” R. 12539 (
Page 49 and 50: had an adequate remedy at law if St
Page 51 and 52: loss condition. Instead of requirin
Page 53 and 54: ARGUMENT I. Class Certification Vio
Page 55 and 56: members.” Slimack v. Country Life
Page 57 and 58: of evidence State Farm would be ent
Page 59 and 60: that are incongruous with the effic
Page 61 and 62: fenders to its pre-loss condition.
Page 63 and 64: a result of Allstate’s specificat
Page 65 and 66: insurance regulators and consumer a
Page 67 and 68: have been the overwhelming predomin
Page 69 and 70: some class members and the issue of
Page 71 and 72: not sooner, that plaintiffs could n
Page 73 and 74: explained above, class members who
Page 75 and 76: Even if the court had been right in
Page 77 and 78: value” of “parts at the time of
Page 79 and 80: page 7, supra. All of these statute
Page 81 and 82: (7th Cir. 1995) (decertifying class
Page 83 and 84: As the circuit court itself recogni
Page 85 and 86: the same shortcut, arguing — just
Page 87 and 88: epresentatives who appeared at tria
Page 89 and 90: — was injured by the alleged dece
Page 91 and 92: Litig., 182 F.R.D. at 225. Basic fa
Page 93 and 94: Meineke’s continued financial via
Page 95 and 96: this decision, plaintiffs were excu
Page 97 and 98: corresponding OEM part. R. 7169. In
Page 99: Mathur’s testimony was particular
Page 103 and 104: Zimny, 256 Ill.App.3d 386, 390-91 (
Page 105 and 106: the jury was focused on the wrong i
Page 107 and 108: to its pre-loss condition.” R. 12
Page 109 and 110: quality of non-OEM parts. See Baltu
Page 111 and 112: which is not surprising because the
Page 113 and 114: In this case, plaintiffs’ experts
Page 115 and 116: Bender could not swear that the non
Page 117 and 118: OEM part construction “had some d
Page 119 and 120: theory, even non-OEM parts that are
Page 121 and 122: of his training or expertise”). P
Page 123 and 124: eflected a policy of “discriminat
Page 125 and 126: “speak up for justice.” R. 1301
Page 127 and 128: 12984-85. The perversion of ostensi
Page 129 and 130: Polywheels company makes both the O
Page 131 and 132: parts — was simply a made-for-lit
Page 133 and 134: In contrast, each of the 47 other s
Page 135 and 136: occurred outside Illinois. 51/ In t
Page 137 and 138: laws of the State where the policy
Page 139 and 140: This Court should follow the weight
Page 141 and 142: other states, Illinois cannot apply
Page 143 and 144: state’s law when it is not within
Page 145 and 146: headquartered in Michigan); Endo, 1
Page 147 and 148: for this Court to alter that author
Page 149 and 150: y using parts of like kind and qual
Page 151 and 152:
plaintiffs’ failure to identify a
Page 153 and 154:
percentage of the class (New York a
Page 155 and 156:
committing fraud: if all non-OEM pa
Page 157 and 158:
specification damages they had soug
Page 159 and 160:
A. It Is Unconstitutional To Punish
Page 161 and 162:
that will subject him to punishment
Page 163 and 164:
fact benefitted from access to non-
Page 165 and 166:
deterrence and therefore must be va
Page 167 and 168:
517 U.S. at 576. This case is not i
Page 169 and 170:
either higher premiums or the incre
show all

No. 5-99-0830 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ... - Appellate.net

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?