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

Meineke’s continued financial viability. 155 F.3d at 338. The court concluded that this
conflict of interest precluded the certification of the class and reversed the judgment. Id. at
338-39; see also E & V Slack, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 969 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. App. 1998)
(certification improper in class of current and former franchisees). The virtually identical
conflict of interest exists here between current and former insureds, and, for the same reason,
this judgment must be reversed and the class decertified.
E. The Circuit Court’s Failure To Provide The Class With Proper Notice
Also Requires Reversal Of The Judgment.
The circuit court’s refusal to give individual notice to the 1.8 million class members
whose names and addresses could be identified from State Farm’s records also requires
reversal of the judgment in favor of the class. As a matter of Illinois law and federal due
process, absent class members were entitled to the best notice practicable. That is
particularly true in light of the conflict between class members described above. See Frank
v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 71 Ill.2d 583, 596 (1978) (individual notice required
where names and addresses are available and where potential conflict of interest among class
members exists); Client Follow-Up Co. v. Hynes, 105 Ill.App.3d 619, 626 (1st Dist. 1982)
(same); see also Miner, 87 Ill.2d at 15 (individual notice required where names and
addresses are available); Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974).
That the publication-only notice given in this case was insufficient is apparent from
the fact that only fifteen of the almost 5 million class members opted out. Compare Shutts,
472 U.S. at 813 (that 3,400 out of 28,000 putative class members opted out demonstrated
that the individual notice given was effective). Even if all of the other formidable obstacles
to class certification outlined above could somehow be overcome, the inadequacy of the
-71-