Issue: Under Illinois law, does Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (2005) support the contention that the standard applied to a review of a court’s rejection of a class action settlement is the same as applied to certification of the class?
|Area of Law:||Litigation Practice & Procedure, Litigation Practice and Procedure|
|Keywords:||; Standard of Review; Class Acton; Settlement; Certification; Class; Scrutiny|
In Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (2005), our supreme court concluded that the alleged breach of contract claims were unsuitable for class certification in light of the number of contracts implicated by the class claims and the material differences in the policy language of these contracts. Avery, 216 Ill.2d at 128-33. The court found that the insurer’s automobile insurance contracts in 48 states could not be given uniform interpretation and, therefore, the commonality and predominance requirement for maintenance of a class action could not be satisfied. Id. There was nothing in Avery that suggested that the certification of a settlement class must be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny that a court applies when determining whether to certify a litigation class.
Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 5-15-0111, 2016.IL.0000239 (Ill. App. Feb. 9, 2016) (VersusLaw).
Date: March 1, 2016