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

conducted discovery, let alone presented unique affirmative defenses, with respect to the
claims of almost five million class members. The court’s treatment of State Farm’s consent
defense illustrates the unfairness inherent in its ruling: the court allowed State Farm to argue
consent, but — in order to avoid introducing any evidence of differences among class
members — prohibited State Farm from telling the jury about the statutes that require
consent. As a result, State Farm was allowed to “argue” that some class members had
consented, but was precluded from presenting any evidence to support that argument.
State Farm had a constitutional right to “an opportunity to present every available
defense,” Lindsey, 405 U.S. at 66. The circuit court’s decision to certify a class deprived
State Farm of any ability to exercise that right. For that reason alone, the judgment below
should be reversed and the class decertified. See, e.g., In re Masonite Corp. Hardboard
Siding Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F.R.D. 417, 425 (E.D. La. 1997) (refusing to certify
nationwide class of consumers claiming to have received defective siding products because,
among other things, “it is apparent that Masonite cannot receive a fair trial without a process
that permits a thorough and discrete presentation of [its individualized] defenses”).
e. Individual Issues Predominated With Respect To The Existence
And Extent Of Damages.
The question of whether and the extent to which class members suffered any
damages also presented uniquely individual issues that could not be resolved properly except
by looking at the individual facts and circumstances of each claim. By the eve of trial, it had
become clear that a large portion of the class had no legitimate claim for damages. As
estopped from claiming a breach of contract. R. 8414-16.
-50-