ILNews

Court reverses class certification in hail-damage action

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the class certification granted by the District Court in a suit brought by unsatisfied homeowners following a 2006 hailstorm in central Indiana.

Policy holders with three different State Farm insurance companies brought a proposed class-action suit in state court, which was later moved to federal court, alleging breach of contract, bad-faith denial of insurance benefits, and unjust enrichment. The homeowners sought damages and an injunction requiring State Farm to re-inspect all the class members’ roofs pursuant to a “uniform, reasonable and objective” standard for evaluating hail damage.

U.S. District Judge William Lawrence denied certification of class under Rule 23(b)(3) under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that each plaintiff’s claim of underpayment required an individualized factual inquiry on the merits.

The case should have ended there, the 7th Circuit concluded today, but Judge Lawrence did grant the plaintiffs’ class claim for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2). The District Court certified a class to determine whether State Farm should have to re-inspect the roofs with a uniform and object standard.

But the case is not appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), the judges decided in Cynthia Kartman, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al., No. 09-1725. The Circuit Court concluded that the lower court order “misconceptualizes” the claims in the case, and this is simply an action for damages and only suitable for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

The plaintiffs claimed to have suffered two separate injuries – underpayment of their hail-damage claims and a violation of the distinct right to have their roofs evaluated under a uniform and objective standard. But State Farm had no independent duty – whether sounding in contract or tort – to use a particular method to evaluate hail-damage claims, wrote Judge Diane Sykes.

The plaintiffs’ argument, that even if State Farm lacked a contractual duty to inspect their roofs pursuant to a uniform and object standard, the duty of good faith required it do so, reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the tort of bad faith, the judge continued.

“Thus, to prove State Farm committed the tort of bad faith, the plaintiffs must establish that their claims were underpaid — or wrongfully denied — in the first place,” she wrote. “This requirement alone bars class certification because it cannot be established on a class-wide basis.”

A case may be certified as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) where the “party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” In this rule, there are two independent requirements: the equitable relief must be appropriate regarding the class as a whole and be final. In this case, the contemplated injunction doesn’t provide appropriate or final relief of the alleged underpayment of the plaintiffs’ hail-damage claims, wrote the judge.

The Circuit Court remanded with instructions to decertify the Rule 23(b)(2) class.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT