Reinsurance Law Blog : Oklahoma Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Stauffer & Nathan Law Firm

In Houck v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 12, plaintiffs complained that Farmers used a claims management company to reduce the amount of medical payments made on claims.  The trial court granted class certification and Farmers appealed.

The trial court certified the following class:
All persons who made a covered claim pursuant to the Medical Payments Coverage of a private passenger automobile insurance policy written by [Farmers] where:
A. Zurich Services Corporation (“ZSC”) was utilized to review medical expenses;
B. Farmers applied ZSC’s RC 40 reduction to the medical expenses; and
C. The insurance policy was written in one of the following states:
1. Alabama;
2. California;
3. Idaho;
4. Illinois;
5. Indiana;
6. Iowa;
7. Montana;
8. Nebraska;
9. Nevada;
10. New Mexico;
11. Ohio;
12. Oklahoma;
13. South Dakota; and/or
14. Wyoming.

The listed states were states in which the same policy language was used.  The appellate court found all requirements for a class action were met, and affirmed the trial court’s ruling. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Clark v. State Farm, the issue was whether the court should have certified a class action against State Farm after Clark’s claims against it had been determined and a judgment issued.  The case involved a PIP claim under Colorado law.  There was a determination that the State Farm policy at issue had to be retroactively reformed to comply with Colorado law; it was, and a judgment was entered against State Farm for the policy limits, which was paid.  The court then refused to certify a class of others for whom such retroactive reformation could apply, finding the controversy moot, as judgment had been entered for Clark.  Other people were not allowed to intervene as plaintiffs because they sought intervention too late.  The court said there was no case or controversy, and class action was properly denied.
 

Clark had failed to appeal a case management order which said that the class action issues would be raised after the reformation matter was decided, if necessary.  But from the tone of the opinion, I don't think it would have mattered.  In addition, the finding denying intervention to additional plaintiffs was not the type of decision that could be reviewed on appeal. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks