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

value” of “parts at the time of the collision,” PX 1200-1 at tab 23 p.16, while the assigned
risk policies promised to pay an “[a]mount necessary to repair or replace the property.” PX
1200-1 at tabs 53-57. Neither of these formulations expressly imposes any standard of part
quality. In fact, the assigned risk policies deliberately delete the “like kind and quality” and
“pre-loss condition” language that appears in other State Farm policies. Compare PX 1200-
1 at tab 14 p.15 (Illinois Policy) with id. at tab 54 p.13 (Illinois Assigned Risk Policy).
Plaintiffs conceded these factual variations and admitted that careful management
was necessary to accommodate them, suggesting either subclasses or special jury
interrogatories. R. 2471-72. Nevertheless, the circuit court refused to take any action to
separate class members with different policy language from the rest of the class and insisted
that the jury not even be told about the existence of these policies. C. 28970 (barring State
Farm from discussing “differences in State Farm’s contractual obligations towards members
of the class”); C. 28980 (barring State Farm from mentioning “the states where the insureds’
policies are filed”). That error alone is sufficient to require reversal of the breach of contract
judgment, since it is impossible to determine what portion of the judgment is attributable to
class members who had significantly different policy language.
Apart from differing policy language, varying state laws with respect to insurance
policies in general and the specification of non-OEM parts in particular created a patchwork
of differing rights and obligations that should have been taken into account in adjudicating
each class member’s claim. It is well settled that an automobile insurance policy must be
interpreted under the laws of the state where the vehicle is garaged or the policyholder lives.
DX 483 at 14.
-55-