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

page 7, supra. All of these statutes bear directly on State Farm’s contractual obligations in
particular states. Thus, for example, if a Massachusetts policyholder had sued State Farm
for breach of contract in Massachusetts, State Farm undoubtedly would have been entitled
to have the Massachusetts statute considered in adjudicating the claim. That this case was
brought as a class action should not have altered the standards under which State Farm’s
conduct with respect to a Massachusetts policyholder was judged. Yet it clearly did, as the
circuit court went so far as to bar State Farm from even mentioning the existence of state
statutes governing the specification of non-OEM parts.
State laws interpreting terms like “pre-loss condition” and “like kind and quality”
also vary. For example, in several states, courts have expressly rejected the argument that
an insurance company is required to restore vehicles to their pre-loss value, holding that the
only obligation is to restore vehicles to their physical condition prior to the accident. 27/ Yet
in this case, plaintiffs were permitted to argue that State Farm had breached its contracts
with all class members even if non-OEM parts restored their vehicles to pre-loss condition
because those parts supposedly diminished the market value of the vehicles. See R. 12861
(even if non-OEM parts were “good,” “it doesn’t matter because the perception is going to
diminish the value of a vehicle. And therefore, these parts are not like kind and quality,
simply because of the perception, for that reason alone”). Plaintiffs never would have been
27/
See Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 754 P.2d 330, 331 (Ariz. App. 1988);
Great Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 979 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Tex. App. 1998); Ray v.
Farmers Ins. Exch., 246 Cal.Rptr. 593, 596 (Ct. App. 1988); Bickel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins.
Co., 143 S.E.2d 903, 906 (Va. 1965); General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v.
Judd, 400 S.W.2d 685, 687 (Ky. 1966); Roth v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. No. 98-3551, slip.
op. at 2-3 (Mass. Super. Ct. Sept. 3, 1999).
-57-