09-1725 Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Auto. Ins. Co.

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Class actions

It was improper to certify a class action against an insurer on behalf of insureds seeking an injunction.
“This case is not appropriate for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2). As an initial matter, the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief suffers from some serious conceptual confusion. This is a suit for breach of contract and bad-faith denial of insurance benefits, the remedy for which is damages. State Farm had a contractual obligation to pay policyholders for their hail-damage losses and a corresponding duty in tort not to deny claims in bad faith. But there is no contract or tort-based duty requiring the insurer to use a particular standard for assessing hail damage. As such, there is no independent cognizable wrong to support a claim for injunctive relief requiring State Farm to conduct a class-wide roof reinspection pursuant to a ‘uniform and objective’ standard.”

Reversed and Remanded.

09-1725 Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Auto. Ins. Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, William T. Lawrence, J., Sykes, J.

Full Text