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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

limine. The court barred State Farm from presenting evidence to the jury concerning differing state laws or differing insurance policies issued by State Farm over the 10½-year class period. C. 28966, 28970. It also barred State Farm from telling the jury that it was a mutual company and from presenting evidence of the “savings to State Farm’s insureds” or “benefits” to policyholders from State Farm’s specification of non-OEM parts. C. 28974, 28988. Finally, the court barred any testimony in the jury portion of the trial concerning the various state laws regulating the specification of non-OEM parts. C. 28966. This ruling prevented State Farm from offering testimony from present and former state insurance regulators who would have explained that the majority of states have concluded that many non-OEM parts are of “like kind and quality” and therefore have expressly allowed insurance companies to specify such parts so long as they meet certain disclosure obligations. R. 9139, 10684-85. These witnesses would also have testified that state legislators and regulators had concluded that non-OEM parts are beneficial to consumers because they help reduce the costs of repairs (and hence premiums) and encourage vigorous competition in the repair parts industry. R. 8945-46, 9136. a. Plaintiffs’ Case. As noted above, the court instructed the jury at the outset of the case that State Farm’s “policies and insurance contracts allow State Farm to specify [non- OEM parts] . . . so long as the crash parts are of like kind and quality which restores the damaged vehicle to its pre-loss condition.” R. 4430-31. Plaintiffs’ witnesses conceded that, in order to determine whether any class member’s vehicle had been restored to pre-loss condition, they would need to know the pre-loss condition of that particular vehicle. R. 4927, 12182. Yet plaintiffs did not present evidence concerning the pre-loss condition of any class -14-
member’s vehicle other than those of the five class representatives who testified at trial. 11/ Plaintiffs also did not attempt to prove — even with respect to the remaining class representatives — that any particular non-OEM part State Farm had specified was incapable of restoring a vehicle to its pre-loss condition. 12/ Instead, plaintiffs sought to prove, by “global” evidence, that all 33,000 different kinds of non-OEM parts encompassed by the class definition were inherently inferior to new OEM parts. R. 12986. Over State Farm’s objection, plaintiffs presented lay opinion testimony from several bodyshop owners and employees, who characterized all non-OEM parts as “junk” and claimed that such parts were always inferior to OEM parts. See, e.g., R. 5892, 6762, 7057, 5860. Some also testified to their “concerns” that non-OEM parts “maybe” are unsafe. R. 4507.20, 5922, 6627-28, 7053. <strong>No</strong>ne of these witnesses had ever attempted to perform a scientific comparison of OEM and non-OEM parts. Two admitted on cross-examination that their opinions were based on promotional brochures from OEM manufacturers. R. 5929; PX 1214 at 32-35. Another based his opinion on a 1<strong>99</strong>9 Consumer Reports article and a television news segment about the article. R. 4507LL-MM, 4507PP, 4531-32. Although 11/ The pre-loss condition of the five class representatives’ vehicles varied considerably. Sam DeFrank owned a five-year-old pick-up truck with 24,000 miles. R. 4507K-L. Mark Covington owned a four-year-old Chevy Cavalier that had been in a previous accident; Covington testified that he did not know what type of replacement parts had been used in the prior repair. R. 5712, 5724-25. Todd Shadle had a four-year-old Saturn. R. 6102. Michael Avery had an eight-year-old Jeep with more than 90,000 miles. R. 6177, 6200. And Carly Vickers had a four-year-old Mazda Protégé, which she bought used, and which had been in at least one prior accident. R. 6338-40. 12/ For example, two of the class representatives (Shadle and Avery) had rejected the non-OEM parts specified for their vehicles and paid extra to have OEM parts installed. R. 6117, 6191. Plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence with respect to the quality of the non- OEM parts specified on the repair estimates given to either Avery or Shadle. -15-
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 and 34: epair estimate specified only OEM p
Page 35: potential class members whose names
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?