ROBERT GRAHAM AND PRISCILLA GRAHAM, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Grahams appealed a dismissal of their class action claims against State Farm, arguing they could represent a class of similarly situated insureds. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Grahams lacked standing to represent a class because their individual dispute with State Farm had been fully resolved two years before they attempted to assert class claims.
The Grahams lacked standing to represent a class because they had no existing dispute with State Farm at the time class certification was sought. A named plaintiff must have an actual case or controversy with the defendant to proceed on behalf of a class, and the Grahams' claim had been fully satisfied.
[1] A named plaintiff must have standing to represent a class in a class action lawsuit.
[2] If none of the named plaintiffs establish a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of themselves or any other members of the class.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No class action may proceed unless there is a named plaintiff with stand [*274] ing to represent the class.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that class representatives must have standing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Grahams had a property loss dispute with State Farm. State Farm paid the disputed amount with interest shortly after the Grahams filed suit in cou…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Class Action Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert and Priscilla Graham appeal a final order dismissing their amended complaint asserting class action claims against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.1 We affirm.
After a dispute arose between the Grahams and State Farm regarding a property loss claim, the Grahams filed suit in county court seeking to recover the disputed amount. Shortly thereafter, State Farm paid the disputed amount with interest. Two years later, the Grahams transferred the case to circuit court based on their amended complaint seeking to assert class action claims against State Farm on behalf of similarly situated State Farm insureds.
No class action may proceed unless there is a named plaintiff with stand ing to represent the class. W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Webb, 699 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). “[I]f none of the named plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes a requisite of a case or controversy with the defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other members of the class.” Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)).
Here, the parties concede that the Grahams suffered a covered loss in 1997, and that State Farm paid the disputed amount with interest in 1998, shortly after the Grahams brought their county court action and before the complaint was amended. Morever, this is not a situation where State Farm “picked off’ the putative class representatives. The conceded facts show that the Grahams were paid in full two years prior to the filing of the class claims. Courts look to the time of certification of the class as the point for considering whether a defendant is attempting to “pick off’ a potential class action litigant. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231, 232 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Based on the conceded facts, there is no existing dispute between the Grahams and State Farm that would give the Grahams standing to proceed on behalf of other potential plaintiffs with similar disputes.
Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the Grahams class claims due to their lack of standing. The Grahams may pursue any individual claim they may have against State Farm, including their claim for attorney’s fees and costs.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . The amended complaint also asserted an individual claim against State Farm. That claim was not dismissed and is not part of this appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neighborhood Health P'ship, Inc. v. Kenneth Fischer, M.D., 913 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…Ins. Co., 833 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)(insured lacked standing to be class representative where insurer had reinstated insured’s policy so that coverage existed to pay medical bills as demanded by insured); Graham v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 813 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(insureds lacked standing to proceed as class representatives where insurer paid insureds in full two years prior to the filing of class claims); Ramon v. Aries Ins. Co., 769 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(insured who had received…
-
Ahearn v. Mayo Clinic, 180 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…006 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 675, 38 L.Ed.2d 674, 682 (1974)) (footnote and citations omitted). See also Chinchilla v. Star Cas. Ins. Co., 833 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Graham v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 813 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Syna v. Shell Oil Co., 241 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1970).4 Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Ahearn’s second count was. for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “Florida contract law does recogn…
-
Capote v. SCI Funeral Servs. of Fla., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974)
- Taran v. Blue Cross Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 685 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- W.S. Badcock Corp. v. Webb, 699 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)