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

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. 1999).
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-