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

presence of non-OEM parts. R. 6342, 6358; R. 4507V-W, 4507BB. In a class action, class
representatives’ experiences should prove class claims; here, the only class members who
testified disproved the diminished value claims of the class.
E. Other Trial Errors Were Clearly Prejudicial, Requiring Reversal Of
The Classwide Judgment Below.
The circuit court also erred in allowing plaintiffs to prove their case through onesided
interpretations of State Farm’s documents, improper attacks on State Farm’s motives
and character, and videotapes that never would have been shown to the jury in an individual
case that was properly focused on the quality of parts actually installed on the insured
vehicle. Each of these errors was substantially prejudicial, requiring, at the very least, a new
trial.
First, the court erred in allowing plaintiffs, over State Farm’s objection, to present
as “expert” witnesses two former insurance regulators, Messrs. Ryles and Hunter, to
“interpret” State Farm’s documents. Ryles and Hunter both confessed that they lacked any
“technical expertise” on vehicle parts, engineering principles, or metallurgy. R. 4852-4, R.
6383-90. Nevertheless, they repeatedly opined that non-OEM parts are inferior in
dimension, structure, safety, and reliability to OEM parts — quintessentially scientific and
technical opinions. 43/ Allowing these “expert” witnesses to testify far outside their area of
expertise was a clear abuse of discretion. See Broussard v. Huffman Mfg. Co., 108 Ill.App.3d
356, 362 (3d Dist. 1982) (expert’s testimony “must be on questions coming within the field
43/
See, e.g., R. 4750 (opining in detail about the purported “dimensional[] inferior[ity]”
of non-OEM parts); R. 4756-58 (discussing galvanization, despite an admitted lack of
knowledge about it).
-98-