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

members.” Slimack v. Country Life Ins. Co., 227 Ill.App.3d 287, 292-93 (5th Dist. 1992);
accord Hagerty v. General Motors Corp., 59 Ill.2d 52, 59 (1974); Key v. Jewel Cos.,176
Ill.App.3d 91, 96 (1st Dist. 1988).
The paradigm class action is one in which class members engaged in “essentially
identical transactions” with the defendant. Miner v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill.2d 7, 19 (1981). By
contrast, class certification has not been allowed under Illinois law where the transactions
at issue differ and the outcome of each purported class member’s claim depends on the
individual facts surrounding his or her own transaction. See, e.g., Magro v. Continental
Toyota, Inc., 67 Ill.2d 157 (1977) (holding that class allegations should have been stricken
as a matter of law because there was no way to tell whether individual class members had
been properly taxed for their automobile repairs without considering the individual facts of
each repair); Charles Hester Enters. v. Illinois Founders Ins. Co., 137 Ill.App.3d 84, 100-01
(5th Dist. 1985) (affirming denial of class certification because the “differing factual bases
of each separate purchase [of dramshop coverage] would have to be inquired into in order
to establish the motives and particulars concerning policy limits desired and actually
purchased” in order to determine whether class members had been deceived), aff’d, 114
Ill.2d 278 (1986). 16/
16/
Accord Hagerty, 59 Ill.2d 52 (1974) (upholding denial of class certification on same
claims alleged in Magro); Elder v. Coronet Ins. Co., 201 Ill.App.3d 733, 754 (1st Dist. 1990)
(affirming denial of class certification where, because of unresolved individual issues,
defendant “would be entitled to a jury trial on the claims of the plaintiff and all the other
members of the class”); Key, 176 Ill.App.3d at 97 (affirming decertification order where the
resolution of plaintiffs’ claims “turns on specific facts as to the relationship between
individual franchisees and White Hen Pantry and the manner in which individual franchisees
operated their stores” and where “[t]here is no evidence to suggest that the experience of the
[named] plaintiffs . . . is in any way representative of a class that would include all
-33-