Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-863, Section "N"
November 16, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants The Standard Fire Insurance Company and James Christian. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is GRANTED.
The defendants were incorrectly denominated in the plaintiff's complaint as Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Co. and Jim Christenson.
BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2000, a severe hail storm struck the New Orleans metropolitan area, pelting thousands of homes and vehicles with golf ball-sized hail. Over 20,000 residents filed insurance claims for hail damage to their cars and rooftops, and the total cost of the damage was estimated to be over $65 million. In January 2001, plaintiff Shelton Pollet ("Pollet") filed suit in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, bringing claims in both his individual and representative capacity against The Standard Fire Insurance Company ("Standard Fire") and independent insurance agent James Christian ("Christian"), alleging that they intentionally or negligently failed to adequately compensate their policyholders for legitimate hail damage claims. Standard Fire and Christian removed the suit to this Court and now seek partial summary judgment on the claims Pollet has brought in his representative capacity.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
To pursue a class action, a plaintiff must first satisfy the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation requirements imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). See FED. R. Civ. P. 23(a). If a putative class action fulfills these four requirements, it must then fit into one of the three categories set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b): (1) prosecution of separate actions must create the risk of inconsistent adjudications or adjudications that would be dispositive of the interests of non-parties, (2) injunctive or declaratory relief must be available to the class as a whole, or (3) common questions of law or fact must predominate over questions that affect only individual class members.
In the instant case, even assuming that the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation requirements have been met, the Court finds that Pollet's proposed class action clearly cannot be maintained under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), which provides that:
An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
(1) the prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or
(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; (D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action.
Pollet does not dispute the defendants' argument that his proposed class action is improper under Rule 23(b)(1) and (2). However, he asserts that he can maintain a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) because common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual class members. Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification based primarily on the potential advantages of economy in terms of time, effort, and expense, as well as the uniformity of result of a class action as opposed to numerous individual suits. See Rules Advisory Committee Notes to 1966 Amendments to Rule 23, 39 F.R.D. 69 (1966); State of Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d 309, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1978).
In determining whether a lawsuit is viable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3), the Fifth Circuit instructs courts to consider whether the issues presented are subject to generalized proof. See Blue Bird Body Co., 573 F.2d at 320-24. In the instant case, the need for individualized proof on thousands of separate claims strongly counsels against maintaining a class action. First, every claimant has a different roof, with different hail damage, in a different location. In addition, each of the thousands of allegations that Standard Fire and Christian acted in bad faith by intentionally failing to pay legitimate claims will require an individual investigation into the damages, the type of insurance policy, and the defendants' actions. Accordingly, the Court finds that maintaining the instant suit as a class action would result in several thousand mini-trials on individual issues, rather than a single comprehensive resolution of issues relevant to the class as a whole. Similarly, the plaintiffs remaining allegations of misrepresentation and deceptive business practices also require fact-specific evidence of the individual policies issued and the promises made to each class member. As a result, a class action trial of these claims would involve multiple detailed analyses of individual issues rather than the efficient resolution of questions pertinent to the class as a whole. For these reasons, the Court does not find that common issues of law or fact predominate over individual questions. Accordingly, the Court finds that certification of the instant suit as a class action is inappropriate, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims brought by Pollet in his representative capacity is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.