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

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-