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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

plaintiffs, like the absent members of the class, could recover as part of the class without proving their own individual claims. R. 12552, 12596, 12544-46. In closing arguments to the jury, State Farm argued that plaintiffs could not recover unless they could prove that all of the non-OEM parts State Farm had specified were inferior. In rebuttal, plaintiffs pointed to the court’s instructions as validation that “it is not our burden in this case” to prove the inferiority of all non-OEM parts, and that they needed to prove merely “[t]hat it is more probably true than not true that State Farm broke its promise to the class.” R. 12987. 8. The Jury Verdict and ICFA Judgment. The jury found for plaintiffs. It awarded all requested specification damages ($243,740,000) and $212,440,000 in installation damages. C. 30226. The court then entered judgment for plaintiffs on the ICFA count, concluding that State Farm’s failure to disclose “known problems” and “possible safety concerns” with respect to non-OEM parts and its use of the term “Quality Replacement Parts” to describe those parts constituted a deceptive practice that injured each class member. A. 11. The court awarded $130 million in disgorgement damages in addition to the specification and installation damages awarded by the jury and, in a single sentence of its order, imposed $600 million in punitive damages — the largest punitive exaction in Illinois history. A. 13. The court also issued a declaratory judgment finding that State Farm’s obligation under all of its insurance policies, regardless of their language and applicable state law, was to specify non-OEM parts that were capable of restoring the vehicle to its pre-loss condition. A. 14. The court declined to issue the injunction plaintiffs had requested to bar State Farm from specifying non-OEM parts in the future, on the ground that policyholders -26-
had an adequate remedy at law if State Farm specified non-OEM parts in breach of its contractual obligations. A. 14-15. The court entered two judgments against State Farm totaling $1,186,636,180, reserving jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs under ICFA at a later time. A. 2-3, 15-16. After it denied State Farm’s post-trial motions, the court entered a Rule 304(a) finding to ensure that the judgments would be immediately appealable. A. 19. The court postponed to a later date the issue of how the judgment, if sustained on appeal, would be allocated among class members. Although plaintiffs and the court have suggested that there will be an ancillary claims proceeding, no decision has been made as to how (if at all) class members will be required to prove their individual claims. SUMMARY <strong>OF</strong> ARGUMENT From the ex parte class certification order issued on the day the complaint was filed through the entry of the largest judgment ever awarded in the State of Illinois, this case was characterized at every turn by improper rulings that violated not only Illinois law, but also the fundamental guarantees of due process established under the Illinois and United States Constitutions. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment should be reversed and the class decertified. As demonstrated in Part I below, this is a case that never should have been certified as a class action. The circuit court clearly abused its discretion by sweeping into a single, massive lawsuit almost five million different repair transactions that occurred in 48 states and the District of Columbia and involved tens of thousands of different kinds of non-OEM parts as well as millions of vehicles of varying ages, makes and pre-loss condition. These -27-
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 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: parts] are inferior.” R. 12539 (
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?