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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT