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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

this material was not admitted into evidence, R. 4406, the court allowed plaintiffs to play the video of the news segment and cite the article repeatedly during trial and closing arguments, over State Farm’s objections. See, e.g., R. 7680-84, 12977-79, 12984-85. Plaintiffs also offered expert opinion testimony. A metallurgist, Kendall Clarke, testified that he had studied the welds and metal composition of seventeen non-OEM hoods and three kinds of tailgates. Based on this limited sample, which was provided to him by one of plaintiffs’ bodyshop witnesses, he opined that all non-OEM sheet metal parts — including types of parts he had never seen — were inferior to their OEM counterparts. R. 5629-30, 5634-37, 5639-41. Clarke admitted that he had made no effort to investigate whether the few parts he tested ever could have appeared on a State Farm estimate. R. 5648- 49 (“Q: Now, out of the work that you did do, you didn’t make any effort to investigate as to whether these parts would have or could have been specified on a State Farm estimate, did you, sir? A: No, I did not”). Paul Griglio, a consultant who had spent his entire career working for OEM manufacturers, R. 5373-75, testified that all non-OEM crash parts are “categorically and overwhelmingly inferior” to their OEM counterparts. R. 5173-74. That conclusion was based on his belief that it is impossible to successfully reverse-engineer any automobile replacement part. R. 5292. Griglio admitted that he had never tested this hypothesis by physically comparing any non-OEM parts to OEM parts. R. 5377-78. Instead, his opinion was based on a three-day visit to three Taiwanese manufacturers that did not make most of the non-OEM parts at issue in this case — including hoods, header panels, tailgates, grills, moldings, fascias, bumpers, or any plastic parts. R. 5377-78, 5396-400. -16-
William Anderton, who had previously worked in a testing laboratory affiliated with Allstate Insurance Company (R. 5742), also testified that no non-OEM parts are as good as OEM parts. R. 5752. On cross-examination, counsel for State Farm showed Anderton laboratory reports generated during his tenure at the company, which found that non-OEM parts often performed as well as or better than OEM parts. See R. 5792-93 (non-OEM part fit so well it practically “fell” into place); R. 5799-802; R. 5806-07 (“‘All OE and non-OE hoods buckled as they should’”). Anderton admitted that he could not point to any statements in those reports that were false. R. 5825. Plaintiffs also offered evidence designed to show that non-OEM parts were perceived as inferior, whether or not they were in fact inferior. For example, public relations consultant Dennis Bender testified about a public opinion survey he had conducted in 1995 on behalf of General Motors comparing a single vehicle that GM had repaired with “genuine GM parts” to a vehicle repaired with five non-OEM parts selected and installed by GM. Based on that very limited survey, Bender concluded that cars that have been repaired using non- OEM parts have a lower resale value. R. 4991. Appraisal consultant Larry Batton offered his opinion that the presence of non-OEM parts on a used car “always” reduces value. R. 11825. On cross-examination, Batton admitted that his own internet site on which he values used cars did not ask whether the car had non-OEM parts. R. 11845-47. Plaintiffs used internal State Farm and CAPA documents that were critical of some types of non-OEM parts to try to persuade the jury that State Farm itself believed that non- OEM parts were inherently inferior to OEM parts. Two former insurance regulators, Tim Ryles and Robert Hunter, testified that these memos established that non-OEM parts were -17-
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 and 36: potential class members whose names
Page 37: member’s vehicle other than those
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?