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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Exh. Box 9, Tab 1. Both court-approved settlements expressly authorized State Farm to continue specifying non-OEM parts. C. 614-15, 649. In the remaining cases, courts refused to certify class actions, finding that individual questions about part quality, causation, and damages predominated over any alleged common questions. See Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 94 CH 11396 (Cook County Cir. Ct. Jan. 27, 1998), C. 23918; Murray v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 96-2585 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 1997), C. 2943. 6. Commencement and Certification of this Class Action. This case began on July 28, 1997, when Jeanne Teter filed a complaint in Williamson County Circuit Court challenging State Farm’s policy regarding non-OEM parts. C. 201. In Count I of the final version of their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that State Farm’s obligation to restore cars to pre-loss condition could “be met only by requiring the exclusive use in repairs of factoryauthorized or OEM parts” and that State Farm therefore breached its contractual obligation whenever it specified non-OEM parts. C 13402, 13409. Count II alleged that State Farm’s “practices” of “installing” non-OEM parts, while promising to use only parts of “like kind and quality,” violated ICFA. C. 13410-11. Count III sought declaratory and injunctive relief under ICFA. C. 13411-12. On the same day that the original complaint was filed — weeks before State Farm was served — the circuit court certified a nationwide class action on an ex parte basis, stating that it had found, after “rigorous analysis,” that all statutory prerequisites had been met and that Teter was an adequate class representative. C. 440. After State Farm was served, plaintiffs conceded that, contrary to the allegations of the complaint Teter had verified, she was not even a member of the class she purported to represent because her -10-
epair estimate specified only OEM parts. R. 601. She was eventually dismissed from the case and replaced by other class representatives. C. 4401. After State Farm was served with the complaint, it moved to vacate the ex parte class certification order on the ground that it had been entered in violation of Illinois law and State Farm’s due process right to be heard. C. 495. After the case was re-assigned to Associate Judge John Speroni, a hearing was set on the class certification issue. State Farm opposed class certification, arguing that there was no predominating common issue of fact because the only way to determine whether it had breached its contractual obligation to pay for parts that would restore a vehicle to pre-loss condition would be to consider the facts and circumstances of each of the millions of individual repair transactions at issue in the case. C. 1893-95. State Farm also argued that the case could not proceed on behalf of a nationwide class because the contract and consumer fraud claims of policyholders outside Illinois would have to be adjudicated under the laws of each state, which differed in critical respects that would make a single trial hopelessly unmanageable. C. 1902-03. The circuit court reaffirmed the class certification order. A. 22. The court concluded that any conflicts in consumer fraud laws could be resolved by applying the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to all class members’ claims and that any differences in contract law could be handled through sub-classes. A. 32. 9/ And it rejected State Farm’s argument that 9/ In a subsequent order, the circuit court concluded that there were “no true conflicts of law” with respect to the breach of contract claims and stated that it would therefore apply Illinois contract law classwide. A. 44-45. The court also stated that it would apply ICFA to the entire class because State Farm is headquartered in Illinois, because the conduct at issue “emanated from activities in Illinois,” and because there were no “true conflicts” among the consumer fraud laws of the various states. A. 46-47. -11-
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: paid the difference in cost out of
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 and 100:
Mathur’s testimony was particular
Page 101 and 102:
end of the day, Mathur conceded tha
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?