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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

epair, there was no way even to make a wild guess as to how much class members — individually or collectively — had actually paid out of their own pockets for OEM parts. The same analysis applies to plaintiffs’ claim for “installation” damages — that is, the cost of removing non-OEM parts on vehicles still owned by class members and replacing them with OEM parts. In any individual case, it would not be particularly difficult to figure out the cost to cure the alleged breach. But, as plaintiffs’ own damages expert candidly admitted, the information necessary to provide a reasonable estimate of “installation” damages on a classwide basis is simply not available. There is no information that would allow an expert to determine how many non-OEM parts were installed on vehicles that class members still own, how many of those failed to restore the vehicles to pre-loss condition, what it would cost to replace those particular parts, how long the repairs would take, or what other consequential damages (such as a rental car) would likely be incurred. The only way to obtain that information is to look at each class member’s situation individually. Because “cost to cure” damages involved “a myriad of individualized factual inquiries,” class certification should have been denied. In re Ford Motor Co. Bronco II Prod. Liab. Litig., 177 F.R.D. 360, 375 (E.D. La. 1<strong>99</strong>7). 2. At The Very Least, The Court Should <strong>No</strong>t Have Allowed The Jury To Find Liability And Render A Damages Verdict On A Classwide Basis. At trial, the circuit court struck many of State Farm’s defenses and excluded evidence on the ground that the only issue being tried was the quality of non-OEM parts. Nevertheless, the court allowed plaintiffs to skip over all of State Farm’s individualized defenses outlined above and to leap directly to a $450 million contract damages award. -52-
Even if the court had been right in concluding that the quality of non-OEM parts could be litigated on a classwide basis through common proof (which it was not), its decision to ignore or eliminate all individual issues and to proceed directly to a damages verdict was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of proper class action procedure. In its class certification ruling, the circuit court stated that “the inability of some members of the class to obtain relief due to particular factors unique to them, is to be resolved at trial and does not impair certification of the class.” A. 27 (emphasis added). This statement is exactly backwards: in Slimack, this Court explained that “questions that may be peculiar to individual [class] members” must be adjudicated “in an ancillary proceeding or proceedings” — not at the “common issues” trial. Slimack, 227 Ill.App.3d at 293. Furthermore, if there is no way to efficiently manage the adjudication of the remaining individual issues through subclasses, the proper remedy is to decertify the class. Id. See also McCabe, 75 Ill.2d at 468-69 (a class action is not appropriate when, even after adjudication of common issues, the court would still have to make individual factual determinations as to each class member). In this case, even if the jury could have properly decided that non-OEM parts were inherently inferior to OEM parts, that would only be the beginning — not the end — of the inquiry. Ancillary proceedings would still be needed to determine, on an individual basis, which vehicles had non-OEM parts installed, whether or not a particular part that was actually installed failed to restore the vehicle to its particular pre-loss condition, whether State Farm had affirmative defenses to particular claims, and whether and how much any individual class member had been damaged by any claimed breach of contract. Depriving -53-
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 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: explained above, class members who
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?