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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The circuit court compounded its error in certifying the class by refusing to decertify it after plaintiffs shifted their theory of the case. As State Farm had predicted, once the trial got underway, it became clear that plaintiffs were no longer shouldering the burden of proving that non-OEM parts were so universally inferior that they could never be used to restore any vehicle, no matter how decrepit it might be, to its pre-loss condition. Instead, plaintiffs now argued that it was not their burden to prove that all non-OEM parts were inferior and that they could prevail if they could persuade the jury that State Farm had breached its “promise to the class.” R. 12987. 23/ The circuit court allowed plaintiffs to present their case on a global, aggregate basis, without having to prove that all non-OEM parts were inferior, which members of the class had suffered an economic loss as a result of the installation or specification of an inferior non-OEM part, or the extent of any individual’s loss. See, e.g., R. 12351; A. 61-62. The approach plaintiffs adopted at trial effectively substituted the class as the plaintiff in the action, submerging all of the class members’ individual claims into a single, aggregate claim. Under this “aggregate” theory, the individual facts of any class member’s claim — and even of the class representatives’ claims — were irrelevant, because the issue was whether the class as a whole had suffered some injury as a result of the practice in question. The circuit court’s decision to accept this approach to avoid what otherwise would 23/ Compare plaintiffs’ statements at the class certification stage that “we will prove at trial that all imitation crash parts are inferior” and that “what we will prove is all imitation crash parts are bad,” R. 1796, 1803, with their closing argument to the jury that “[i]t 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. -44-
have been the overwhelming predominance of individual issues of fact was an error of law that requires reversal of the judgment and decertification of the class. The certification of a class does not alter the substantive law applicable to the class members’ claims. See Meineke, 155 F.3d at 345 (“It is axiomatic that the procedural device of Rule 23 cannot be allowed to expand the substance of the claims of class members”); Cimino v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 151 F.3d 297, 312 (5th Cir. 1998) (class certification “does not alter the required elements which must be found to impose liability and fix damages (or the burden of proof thereon) or the identity of the substantive law . . . which determines such elements”). See also Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1997) (holding that the class action device cannot “sacrific[e] procedural fairness”). Because the same substantive rules apply whether there is one plaintiff or millions suing as a class, plaintiffs must be able to prove all of the elements of their claim for each member of the class on whose behalf a judgment is rendered. This proposition is wellestablished in the antitrust context. See, e.g., In re Hotel Tel. Charges, 500 F.2d 86, 90 (9th Cir. 1974) (“allowing gross damages by treating unsubstantiated claims of class members collectively significantly alters substantive rights under the antitrust statutes”); Dry Cleaning & Laundry Inst. v. Flom’s Corp., 1993 WL 527928, at *3 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (“only individual members of the proposed class, not the class, can be injured ‘in [their] business or property’ by a[n] [antitrust violation]”). The same rationale applies to a breach of contract claim: a policyholder cannot recover damages for a breach of contract unless he can prove that he personally suffered an economic loss as a result of the insurance company’s failure to meet the particular obligations that were owed to him. -45-
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 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: insurance regulators and consumer a
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?