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

common issues of fact or law predominate, the circuit court’s decision to certify a
nationwide consumer fraud class should be reversed.
2. The Circuit Court Abused Its Discretion In Concluding That
Common Issues Of Fact Predominated With Respect To
Plaintiffs’ Consumer Fraud Claims.
Even if only Illinois law were applied, however, there are too many individual issues
of fact for the ICFA claim to meet the predominance requirement. In order to prove a claim
for damages under ICFA, a plaintiff must be able to identify a material misrepresentation of
fact that proximately caused the plaintiff to suffer an economic loss. 815 ILCS 505/2 &
505/10a. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482, 501 (1996). In this case, proof of the
elements of proximate cause and damages would require an inquiry into the individual facts
and circumstances surrounding each transaction. Thus, common issues of fact would not
predominate over individual issues even with respect to an Illinois-only class.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Zekman v. Direct Am. Marketers, Inc., 182 Ill.2d
359 (1998), underscores the need to review the individual facts of each case in order to make
a determination as to whether the alleged deception was the proximate cause of any harm.
There, the Court upheld summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the plaintiff’s
deposition testimony revealed that he had not been deceived into making telephone calls to
a “900” number, but rather had fully understood the true facts at the time he made the calls.
In this case, whether any individual class member was deceived by whatever statements
were made by State Farm about the quality of non-OEM parts would depend on the facts and
circumstances surrounding the individual transaction.
For example, it was apparent from the trial testimony that none of the five class
-64-