Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

District Court Strikes Homeowners Policyholders’ Class Action Allegations

February 16, 2015 by Carlton Fields

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted defendant State Auto’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations, holding that the complaint itself demonstrated that the proposed class was not ascertainable and could not satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality requirements, nor the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b).  The complaint alleged that State Auto committed fraud, breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violated the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act in connection with a  “Defender Endorsement” in some of its homeowners policies.  State Auto allegedly marketed the Defender Endorsement as providing “100% replacement cost coverage,” with an additional bonus of up to 25% of policy limits if losses exceeded limit limits.  Plaintiffs’ alleged that this language created a mistaken impression that the Endorsement was required in order for a policyholder to be adequately insured.  In addition, plaintiffs alleged that State Auto was able to increase policy limits through the Defender Endorsement, which resulted in higher premiums and eliminated any chance that State Auto would need to pay the 25% bonus.  Further, plaintiffs alleged that they were charged for a benefit that they would never need nor realize due to State Auto’s intentional overstatement of the costs to rebuild homes.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of persons who purchased a policy with a Defender Endorsement, “and subsequently had their policy limits and premiums unilaterally increased . . . under the guise of providing adequate replacement cost coverage.”

The court held that the class was not ascertainable because individual inquiries on a property-by-property basis were required to determine class membership. Similarly, the court held that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) could not be satisfied.  The court found that individual issues regarding replacement costs and appropriate coverage limits would ultimately overwhelm any common questions because State Auto’s liability would hinge on a  home-by-home analysis.  Additionally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that reliance could be presumed or inferred for purposes of the fraud claims.  Thus, an individual policyholder inquiry would be required in order to determine whether a particular policyholder paid inflated premiums based on consultations and conversations regarding the characteristics and value of their homes.

Finally, because the court found that the predominance and commonality requirements could not be satisfied, the court held that the superiority and typicality requirements for class certification would likewise fail.  Accordingly, the court struck plaintiffs’ class allegations.

Schumacher v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 13-00232 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2015).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

District of Colorado Declines To Certify Deceptive Practices Class

Next Article »

No Harm, No Standing: Texas Federal Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.