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

parts are “categorically inferior” and can never be used to restore any vehicle to its pre-loss
condition. At trial, however, plaintiffs began to backpedal and ultimately convinced the
circuit court to salvage the class by relieving them of their burden to prove that State Farm
had breached its contract with each and every member of the class. That decision was
wrong, as a matter of law, and provides a sufficient reason, in and of itself, to reverse the
breach of contract judgment.
In its opening instruction, the court told the jury that State Farm could properly
specify non-OEM parts so long as those parts were “of like kind and quality which restore
the damaged vehicle to its pre-loss condition.” R. 4426. Plaintiffs’ own experts admitted
that the only way to tell whether any particular vehicle had been restored to its pre-loss
condition was to ascertain its pre-loss condition. R. 4927, 12182. Nevertheless, apart from
telling the jury about the five class representatives’ cars, plaintiffs never introduced any
evidence about the pre-loss condition of any of the almost five million vehicles at issue in
this case. At the close of the evidence, State Farm moved for a directed verdict on the
ground that plaintiffs had failed to introduce any evidence on this basic element of their case.
That motion was denied, without comment. R. 12350.
The court also refused to submit the issue of pre-loss condition to the jury. State
Farm proposed the following instruction: “In order to determine whether a non-OEM crash
part is of like kind and quality which restored a class member’s vehicle to its pre-loss
condition, you must determine the pre-loss condition of that vehicle. If you cannot
determine the pre-loss condition of that class member’s vehicle, your verdict must be for
State Farm.” A. 69. The court refused to give that instruction. R. 12490-91. As a result,
-82-