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

When these fundamental principles are applied to plaintiffs’ breach of contract
claims, it becomes apparent that the circuit court abused its discretion first by certifying the
class and then by denying State Farm’s motions to decertify.
1. Plaintiffs’ Contract Claims Raised A Host Of Fact Questions
That Could Be Fairly Resolved Only On An Individual Basis.
The circuit court reaffirmed the ex parte class certification order on the ground that
State Farm’s “common pattern” of specifying non-OEM parts created a common issue of
“contract[] interpretation.” A. 29. Subsequently, however, the court resolved any question
of contract interpretation by concluding that all of State Farm’s policies — regardless of
differences in language and governing state laws — imposed the same obligation: to pay for
parts of like kind and quality which restore the policyholders’ vehicle to its pre-loss
condition. R. 4426; A. 59-60. 17/ Having defined State Farm’s obligations under its policies,
the court should have gone on to consider whether State Farm’s compliance with that
obligation could be determined based on common evidence, rather than inquiring into each
individual repair. See Eshaghi, 214 Ill.App.3d at 1001 (to determine predominance, “the
court must inquire into the issues raised and standard of proof required by the substantive
law upon which plaintiff’s complaint is based”).
The circuit court, however, refused to conduct the required predominance analysis.
The court did not consider what facts plaintiffs would have to prove to establish the elements
of each class member’s individual breach of contract claim. Nor did it consider what kind
franchisees”).
17/
As demonstrated in Part I(A)(3) below, the circuit court was plainly wrong in
concluding that a single contractual standard applies to all claims of all class members.
-34-