STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JO CAROL KENDRICK, 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.
State Farm appeals a class certification order in an insurance coverage dispute. The court reversed the certification, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.
The court held that the class certification must be reversed because the plaintiff failed to prove all elements required for class certification. Specifically, the plaintiff did not establish numerosity, commonality of claims and defenses, typicality of the representative's claims to the class, or her adequacy as a class representative.
[1] A plaintiff seeking class action certification bears the burden of demonstrating that the case is certifiable under the applicable rules of civil procedure.
[2] A plaintiff must present evidence of numerosity to establish the first prong of class action certification; the size of a defendant's business is insufficient to meet thi…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A plaintiff seeking certification of a class action bears "the burden of demonstrating that the case is certifiable as a class action ..."”
Establishes that the burden rests on the plaintiff to prove all elements of class certification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sought to appeal a trial court's order certifying a class of Florida insureds. The plaintiff sought cla…
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 Commonality cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals an order certifying a class of Florida insureds. We reverse because the plaintiff did not prove the elements required for certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220.
A plaintiff seeking certification of a class action bears “the burden of demonstrating that the case is certifiable as a class action ....” Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(quoting Bishop v. Committee on Prof. Ethics & Conduct, 686 F. 2d 1278 (8th Cir.1982)). Here, the plaintiff has not done so.
Nothing in the record supports a finding that the first prong of the rule, numerosity, has been established. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(a)(1). The trial court’s findings are based on the size of State Farm’s business; this is insufficient to meet the burden of proving numerosity. Plaintiffs appeal to common sense is meager proof indeed that the class is so numerous as to merit class action treatment. The plaintiff has not presented any evidence of numer-osity in this case.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated commonality’—that the claims and defenses of the class representative are common to the class members. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(a)(2). Liability in this case depends on resolution of multiple individual issues. The plaintiffs argument, that State Farm should treat all of its insureds the same, is insufficient to establish commonality. No “common right-of recovery based on the same essential facts,” has been demonstrated. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
The next element, typicality, examines the relationship of the plaintiffs claims—the class representative—to the class’s claims. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(a)(3). The plaintiffs claims are not typical of any purported class claims. In fact, the evidence demonstrates the plaintiff was in a totally different position than the putative class members she would represent. While “[t]he mere presence of factual differences will not defeat typicality,” Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888, 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this case presents no typicality upon which to rest class certification. Lastly, plaintiff has not proven that she will be an adequate class representative. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(a)(4). Nothing in the record demonstrates that plaintiff has “interests in common with the proposed class members[.]” Id. Plaintiffs case is dramatically different from the cases of the putative class members.'
This ease presents a multitude of varied claims under. various insurance policies, based on widely divergent individual facts. Such cases are particularly unsuitable for class action treatment. See Humana, Inc. v. Castillo, 728 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wiener v. Avis Rent A Car, 318 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). To allow class certification in this case would undermine the purpose for which this procedural vehicle was created.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the order certifying the class.
Certification reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Howard A. Engle, M.D., 853 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…al, even though there is a common nucleus of facts concerning the defendants’ conduct, this case presents a multitude of individualized issues which make it particularly unsuitable for class treatment. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 822 So. 2d 516, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Humana, Inc. v. Castillo, 728 So. 2d 261, 265-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); see also In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F. 3d 1012, 1020 (7th Cir.2002) (reversing certification; differences in state law cannot be overridden bas…
-
Seminole Cnty. v. Tivoli Orlando Assocs. Ltd., 920 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…e builders who paid fees for structures from warehouses to swimming pools. Ti-voli did not provide sufficient information to satisfy the typicality requirement. See Terry L. Braun, P.A., 827 So. 2d at 268; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 822 So. 2d 516, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATION ORDER The trial court may certify a class action only after it determines [*824] through rigorous analysis that the elements of the class action rule have been met. Terry L. Braun, P.A., 827 So. 2d…
-
KIA Motors Am. Corp. v. Butler, 985 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…. 2d 860, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Open MRI of Pinellas, Inc., 911 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Updegraff, 807 So. 2d 768, 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 822 So. 2d 516, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (reversing an order certifying a class of Florida insureds on the ground that “[n]o ‘common right of recovery based on the same essential facts,’ has been demonstrated”) (quoting Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Broin v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 641 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Washington Locksmith v. Miami Dade Cnty., 728 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Baptist Hosp. OF Miami, Inc. v. Demario, 661 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Magnetic Imaging Sys. I, Ltd., 694 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Bishop v. Comm. ON Prof'l Ethics & Conduct OF the Iowa State BAR Ass'n & its Chairman, 686 F.2d 1278 (8th Cir. 1982)
- Cordell v. World Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Wiener v. AVIS Rent A CAR & I. T. T. Hamilton Life Ins. Co., 318 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)