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

— was injured by the alleged deception. See Fibreboard Corp, 893 F.2d at 712 (rejecting
plan to try 3,000 asbestos claims on a class basis because doing so would change the
substantive law applicable to class members’ claims by effectively excusing them from
proving that their individual injuries had been caused by exposure to asbestos).
C. The Circuit Court Applied The Wrong Standard In Concluding That A
Class Action Was A Fair And Efficient Way To Adjudicate This
Controversy.
A class may not be certified in Illinois unless the court properly determines that a
class action is “an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(4). The circuit court described this as a “flexible”
requirement that does not require proof that a class action is the most efficient way to
proceed. A. 34. The court concluded that plaintiffs had met their burden under this
subsection because a class action might be “the only practical means for State Farm
policyholders to present their claims and for State Farm to achieve finality as to their
claims.” Id. The court also concluded — without any explanation — that the proposed class
adjudication was manageable. A. 37.
The circuit court’s view of the appropriateness requirement was wrong as a matter
of law. The Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that the Illinois statute, no less than
Federal Rule 23, requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that a class action “can best secure the
economies of time, effort, and expense.” McCabe, 75 Ill.2d at 468-69. It is thus not the kind
of endlessly “flexible” requirement the circuit court supposed it to be.
Furthermore, the circuit court erred by focusing exclusively on the statutory
requirement of “efficiency,” while completely ignoring the equally important requirement
-67-