 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sitton v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.2/18/2003
sions of Rule 23(b)(3) and (c)(4).
Under State Farm's interpretation of the predominance requirement, no subsection (b)(3) class could be certified where the claim requires resolution of individual issues such as causation and harm. We reject this interpretation of the rule as inconsistent with the purpose of class actions and as failing to consider judicial economy. Here, the central allegation is that State Farm's utilization reviews are not for the purpose of determining whether medical treatment is covered, but are a means to wrongfully deny or limit benefits. A common nucleus of operative facts appears to exist on this issue, and that satisfies the predominance standard of CR 23(b)(3).
Superiority. CR 23(b)(3) also requires 'that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.' This requirement focuses upon a comparison of available alternatives. Here, the traditional alternatives of joinder, intervention, or consolidation are not available, and CR 23 is to be construed liberally in favor of permitting certification. State Farm contends, however, that case management problems will render a class adjudication impossible. This is a matter best determined by the trial court. Even with the myriad of management devices available, the management of any complex class action is likely to present a challenge. But forcing numerous plaintiffs to litigate the alleged pattern or practice of bad faith in repeated individual trials runs counter to the very purpose of a class action:
It must also be remembered that manageability is only one of the elements that goes into the balance to determine the superiority of a class action in a particular case. Other factors must also be considered, as must the purposes of Rule 23, including: conserving time, effort and expense; providing a forum for small claimants; and deterring illegal activities.
State Farm does not demonstrate that insurmountable obstacles stand in the way here. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by maintaining the class under CR 23(b)(3).
II. Validity of Trial Plan
We granted discretionary review at this stage of the litigation in large part because of the trial plan adopted by the court. The plan calls for bifurcated proceedings. In Phase I, the jury will be asked to resolve the following questions:
1. Did State Farm create and implement a program designed to deny, limit and/or terminate PIP claims?
2. Did this program violate State Farm's duty of good faith and fair dealing to class members?
3. Did this program cause harm to the class members?
4. What is the amount of aggregate class damages?
5. Should punitive damages be awarded as a punishment to State Farm for breaching its duty of good faith through creation and implementation of the program?
Phase II will address 'the amount of each class member's individual bad faith damages on an individually litigated basis depending on the amount of each class member's asserted bad faith damages.' As to Phase II, 'details and case schedule {remain} to be determined.'
State Farm argues the trial plan violates due process and its right to a jury trial, because it contemplates an award of damages without requiring plaintiffs to prove individual causation and without permitting State Farm to advance its defenses. We agree.
The central contention here is that State Farm acted in bad faith to deny PIP benefits to its insureds. The harm alleged is individual to each insured. Yet the trial plan contemplates class-wide damages ('aggregate damages'), which plaintif
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|