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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

in fact inferior to OEM parts. R. 4653-59, 6380. Both witnesses disclaimed any technical expertise that would enable them to reach an opinion of their own with respect to the quality of non-OEM parts. As Hunter explained, “I’m not the parts guy. I am the documents guy.” R. 6388; see also R. 4852-54; 6383-90. 13/ Not all of plaintiffs’ witnesses agreed that non-OEM parts are categorically inferior to OEM parts. For example, in response to a question as to whether she was saying that all OEM parts are better than all non-OEM parts, plaintiffs’ witness Christine Moorman replied that it would be “foolishness” to make such a blanket statement. R. 11916. Similarly, one of plaintiffs’ bodyshop witnesses, Dave Beyers, testified that in his experience approximately 35% of CAPA-certified parts fit well and that another 30% can be made to fit if the bodyshop works with them. R. 6094-95. b. State Farm’s Case. State Farm argued throughout the trial that there is no way to make categorical judgments about non-OEM parts. State Farm agreed that there were inferior non-OEM parts available in the marketplace during the class period. It presented evidence, however, that there were also many non-OEM parts that could be used to restore vehicles to their pre-loss condition and that State Farm had instituted safeguards to ensure that only quality non-OEM parts were installed on its policyholders’ vehicles. State Farm argued that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proving that all non-OEM parts were 13/ Plaintiffs also relied on out-of-court statements by State Farm estimators that were recounted by bodyshop witnesses, which described non-OEM parts in derogatory terms. R. 5890, 5922, 6643-47; PX 1314B at 31. In addition, they cited deposition testimony by a few State Farm executives that the non-OEM parts State Farm specified were not “equal” to OEM parts, although these same witnesses testified that the parts were “functionally equivalent” to OEM parts and restored cars to pre-loss condition. R. 13005-06; 7261-65. -18-
categorically inferior and, in fact, had not offered evidence that any non-OEM part that was actually installed on a class member’s vehicle failed to restore it to pre-loss condition. 14/ State Farm presented a variety of witnesses who testified to the availability during the class period of non-OEM parts that met the contractual standard. Donald Parker, an automotive engineering expert, showed the jury samples of non-OEM and OEM parts (header panels, fenders and bumper covers). Parker testified that he had tested and measured the parts and had concluded that the non-OEM parts were as good as the OEM parts. R. 7965-66. With respect to the header panels, another witness testified that both the OEM and the non-OEM version were made by the same company (Polywheels of Canada) at the same plant and that the only difference was that they were packed in different boxes — and sold at different prices. R.10992-94. State Farm also presented the testimony of numerous bodyshop witnesses who stated that they routinely use the non-OEM parts State Farm specifies to restore cars to their preloss condition. See, e.g., R. 7995-96, 8007-09, 8070-72, 9038-39, 9697. Some brought pictures of vehicles they had repaired using non-OEM parts. R. 7733, 8018-23. One (Kelly 14/ As described above, only three of the five class representatives who appeared at trial had non-OEM parts installed on their vehicles. Carly Vickers testified that she was “not one hundred percent” happy with the repair, but could not say that her dissatisfaction was due to the quality of the parts used, rather than the quality of the repair. R. 6354-55. Sam DeFrank complained that one of the nine non-OEM parts installed on his truck sagged, but that complaint was successfully redressed by putting in two screws. R. 6086-87. Mark Covington complained about an ill-fitting hood and light. R. 5721. There was a dispute as to whether these problems were the result of the quality of the parts themselves, a subsequent collision, or the repair shop’s failure to install the parts properly. R. 5730-32, 8163-65. Because the circuit court refused State Farm’s request for a verdict with respect to the claims of the five class representatives, there is no way to tell how (if at all) the jury resolved the factual issues raised by these specific repairs. -19-
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 and 38: member’s vehicle other than those
Page 39: William Anderton, who had previousl
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?