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

(7th Cir. 1995) (decertifying class action in part because the trial court sought to paper over
variations in state law with an “Esperanto instruction” melding the laws of 50 states).
B. The Circuit Court Abused Its Discretion In Concluding That Common
Questions Predominated Over Individual Issues With Respect To
Plaintiffs’ Consumer Fraud Claims.
1. The Circuit Court Erred As A Matter Of Law In Concluding
That There Were Common Issues Of Law.
State Farm argued that a nationwide consumer fraud class could not be certified
because, among other things, the claims of non-Illinois class members would be governed
by the varying consumer fraud laws of 47 states and the District of Columbia. The circuit
court rejected this argument, holding that common issues of law predominated because there
were no “true conflicts” between ICFA and the consumer fraud statutes of other states and
because, in any event, ICFA could properly be applied to the claims of all class members,
no matter where the alleged deception occurred. A. 45-46. Both of those conclusions were
wrong as a matter of law.
First, the circuit court’s conclusory assertion, after several rounds of lengthy briefing,
that there are no “true conflicts” among consumer fraud statutes is inexplicable. As one court
observed in refusing to certify a nationwide consumer fraud class, “a brief review of the
applicable statutes reveals . . . differing standards of proof, procedure, substance, and
remedies.” Tylka v. Gerber Prods. Co., 178 F.R.D. 493, 498 (N.D. Ill. 1998). That
description is particularly apt when the defendant is an insurance company. In at least eight
states, policyholders are not allowed to bring consumer fraud claims at all against insurance
companies, but rather are required to seek remedies under the state’s insurance laws and
-59-