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

theory, even non-OEM parts that are as good as or better than OEM parts could not, under
any circumstances, meet the contractual standard. 42/
In addition, plaintiffs utterly failed to prove that whatever negative perceptions there
might have been had such a universal effect on the market value of used vehicles that State
Farm must be deemed to have breached its contract every time a non-OEM part was installed
on a class member’s vehicle. Indeed, the key witness plaintiffs introduced in an attempt to
prove that non-OEM parts diminish resale value actually proved the opposite. Larry Batton
claimed in his direct testimony that non-OEM parts “always” reduce value. R. 11825. On
cross-examination, however, Batton admitted that an elaborate questionnaire he uses on his
web-site to value consumers’ cars does not ask if the cars have any non-OEM parts. R.
11845-47. Batton also admitted that, in many years of writing valuation letters for State
Farm, he wrote that non-OEM parts devalued a car only one time, which was after plaintiffs
had hired him as an expert in this case. R. 11850-51. Finally, Batton conceded that he
personally sold used cars without disclosing that they had non-OEM parts on them, and
apparently without discounting the price. R. 11843-44.
The real-world experiences of the class representatives also contradicted the
perception theory. Two named plaintiffs (Vickers and DeFrank) who received non-OEM
parts no longer owned the repaired vehicles by the time of trial. As noted above, these
plaintiffs admitted that neither of them received less for their vehicles because of the
42/
Tellingly, plaintiffs’ perception theory directly contradicts their consumer fraud
theory. On the ICFA count, plaintiffs claimed that class members “had no knowledge of
[non-OEM] inferiority.” C. 29170. But the perception theory assumes the opposite — that
non-OEM inferiority is a widely known fact in the market.
-97-