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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

individual issues of fact predominated over any purported common questions, relying on plaintiffs’ representations that they would be able to prove “that non-OEM parts are categorically inferior.” A. 31. The circuit court ultimately adopted the following class definition for the breach of contract claim: All persons in the United States, except those residing in Arkansas and Tennessee, who between July 28, 1987 and February 24, 1998; one, were insured by a vehicle casualty insurance policy issued by defendant, State Farm; and, two, made a claim for vehicle repairs pursuant to their policy, and had non-factory authorized and/or non-OEM original equipment manufacturer crash parts installed on their vehicles, or else received monetary compensation determined in relation to the cost of such parts. Excluded from the class are employees of defendant, State Farm, its officers, its directors, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates. In addition, the following persons are excluded from the class: One, persons who resided or garaged their vehicles in Illinois, and whose Illinois insurance policies were executed prior to April 16th, 1994, and [two,] persons who resided in California, and whose policies were issued[/]executed prior to September 26th, 1996. A. 57. 10/ The class definition for the ICFA claim was identical, except that the class period began on July 28, 1994, to reflect ICFA’s three-year statute of limitations. Although the precise number of class members is unclear, approximately 4.7 million policyholders received estimates specifying at least one non-OEM part during the 10½-year period established for the breach of contract class. R. 7170-71. The court rejected State Farm’s proposal to send individual notice to the 1.8 million 10/ The exclusion of some Illinois and California residents reflected settlement agreements in those states. Arkansas and Tennessee residents were excluded to enable plaintiffs’ counsel to pursue state-wide class actions they had already filed. After State Farm removed the Tennessee action to federal court, that court denied class certification, Murray v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 96-2585 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 19, 1997), C. 2943; the case was later dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs in the Arkansas action withdrew their request for class certification, and the case was settled on an individual basis. C. 23965. -12-
potential class members whose names and addresses were known. C. 7076. Instead, it ordered notice by publication in such media as The National Enquirer, The Star, and People magazine, among others. C. 9030, 9027, 8014. Only fifteen of the 4.7 million potential class members opted out of the class. A. 4-5. 7. Trial. After their original named plaintiff was forced to drop out of the litigation, plaintiffs added eleven new plaintiffs to serve as class representatives. C. 28956. Before trial, State Farm moved for summary judgment against all of the named plaintiffs, on the ground that each of their claims suffered from some defect that precluded recovery. For example, State Farm argued that two of the class representatives (Laurie Loger and Tammy Snider) had no claim because OEM parts had been installed on their vehicles, at no additional charge, even though non-OEM parts had been specified on their repair estimates. R. 4524, 4530; C. 15577-80, 15914. The circuit court denied State Farm’s motion on the ground that there were genuine issues of material fact as to each class representative that would have to be tried. C. 22404. State Farm also moved for decertification of the class, arguing that discovery had revealed a wide variation in the facts and circumstances of each class representative’s repair, demonstrating that the case could not be fairly adjudicated on a classwide basis. C. 17802. The circuit court denied that motion as well, without comment. A. 42. On the day before the trial, plaintiffs dropped five of the eleven class representatives, including the two who had received OEM parts at no additional cost. C. 28956; R. 3612-13. Although these individuals no longer represented the class, they remained members of the class. Before the trial began, the circuit court granted a number of plaintiffs’ motions in -13-
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: epair estimate specified only OEM p
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?