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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

each of contract claim with respect to each class member — and the only way State Farm would have a full and fair opportunity to establish its defenses — would be to look at the individual facts surrounding each class member’s repair transaction. a. Individualized Proof Was Necessary To Determine Which Class Members Had <strong>No</strong>n-OEM Parts Installed On Their Vehicles. State Farm’s records identify the policyholders who received repair estimates specifying non-OEM parts. But those records do not show whether the non-OEM parts specified were actually installed on the policyholders’ vehicles. R. 10211. A study introduced at trial indicated that only 50% of the non-OEM parts that were specified were actually installed. R. 10164-65. In many cases, an OEM part was installed at no additional cost to the policyholder. See page 8, supra. Plaintiffs themselves admitted that this occurred in “numerous” cases. C. 13404. Obviously, a class member who received an OEM part at no additional cost cannot claim to have suffered any economic loss. Yet the only way to separate out the class members who actually had non-OEM parts installed on their vehicles from those who did not was to look at the individual facts surrounding each repair. The circuit court should have denied class certification or decertified the class when it became clear that it was impossible to tell without looking at each individual repair which members of the class had non-OEM parts installed on their vehicles. A federal district court made precisely this point recently in denying certification of a class of purchasers of Chrysler vehicles that had been painted with an allegedly inferior paint process. See Sanneman v. Chrysler Corp., 2000 WL 257452 (E.D. Pa. 2000). As the court noted, “the practical issue of actually identifying class members” — proving whose vehicles had suffered or were suffering paint delamination — “presents serious administrative burdens -36-
that are incongruous with the efficiencies expected in a class action.” Id. at *4. Because there was no way to tell, without looking at each individual vehicle, whose vehicles were in fact delaminating or had delaminated — let alone why the delamination had occurred — the court held that class certification was improper. The same result should have been reached here, where it is impossible to tell without looking at each individual repair which members of the class had standing to seek damages for any alleged breach of contract. See Kelly v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 308 Ill.App.3d 633, 644 (1st Dist. 1<strong>99</strong>9). Plaintiffs tried to get around the threshold problem created by their inability to identify when non-OEM parts were actually installed by claiming that the mere specification of a non-OEM part constituted a breach of contract entitling the policyholder to so-called “specification” damages. But there was no breach of contract by State Farm so long as the insured’s vehicle was restored to pre-loss condition, which, under plaintiffs’ theory, use of OEM parts accomplished. Moreover, no principle of law allows a plaintiff who did not suffer any real harm to recover damages for a breach of contract. Plaintiffs’ own expert conceded that their theory of specification damages made no economic sense precisely because policyholders who received OEM parts at no additional cost could not claim to have suffered any loss as a result of the specification of non-OEM parts. R. 7222-23. That plaintiffs were forced to rely upon such a far-fetched damages theory in order to deal with their inability to identify who had received non-OEM parts should have been a clear signal to the circuit court that this case was not appropriate for class treatment. See Broussard v. -37-
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 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: of evidence State Farm would be ent
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?