Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Black Hills Federal Credit Union and CUNA Mutual Insurance Society for changing their credit disability insurance policy. The complaint alleged that Defendants wrongfully switched the credit disability insurance policies of 4,461 borrowers. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, but the trial court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiffs did not meet the adequacy requirement or the predominance and superiority requirements of the class certification statutes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its application of the class certification statutes to the facts in this case. Remanded for certification of the class.View "Thurman v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y" on Justia Law

Appellants, approximately 750 employees, brought a class action against their employers (Employers), alleging five causes of action, including unlawful deductions made in violation of Minn. Stat. 181.79. The jury found Employers did not violate section 181.79. After the verdict, Appellants unsuccessfully requested judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on their section 181.79 claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellants were entitled to JMOL on their claim under section 181.79, as there was no legally sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to find that Employers did not make unlawful deductions from Appellants' wages in violation of section 181.79. Remanded with instructions to enter JMOL in favor of Appellants on liability for their section 181.79 claim.View "Karl v. Uptown Drink, LLC" on Justia Law

A class of Plaintiffs brought suit against Insured, a hotel proprietor, alleging that Insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The class and Insured subsequently reached a settlement. The class then filed a garnishment action against Insurer. Insurer sought a declaratory judgment that its policy with Insured did not provide coverage because the policy did not cover damages awarded related to the TCPA. The trial found (1) Insurer owed Insured a duty to defend in the class actions because the class's claims were covered under the policy; and (2) Insurer had a duty to indemnify Insured for the full settlement plus interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly determined that Insurer wrongly refused to defend Insured under its policy coverage; (2) Insurer was not entitled to a reassessment of the reasonableness of the settlement; and (3) policy limits did not bar Insurer's indemnification of the settlement.View "Columbia Cas. Co. v. HIAR Holding, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who carried health insurance through New West Health Services (New West), was injured in an automobile accident resulting in medical expenses totaling approximately $120,000. The tortfeasor's insurer paid approximately $100,000 of Plaintiff's medical bills. Plaintiff later filed a complaint against New West alleging individual and class claims, asserting that New West failed to pay approximately $100,000 of her medical expenses because the third party liability carrier had paid the majority of the bills. The district court certified the class complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the class definition proposed by Plaintiff and denying New West's motion to modify the class definition.View "Rolan v. New West Health Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were insured through the State group insurance plan administered by Defendants. Both Plaintiffs were injured in automobile accidents caused by tortfeasors whose insurers accepted liability. The third-party insurers paid Plaintiffs' medical providers, but in both cases, the State and Defendants allegedly exercised their rights of subrogation without confirming that Plaintiffs under the State plan had been made whole. Plaintiffs filed a class complaint seeking a declaratory ruling that Defendants' practices violated the State's made-whole laws. On remand, the district court defined the class to include only those insureds who had timely filed claims for covered benefits, thus excluding from the class all non-filing insureds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the incorporation of the filing limitation did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Diaz v. State" on Justia Law

In Feeney II, the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the superior court invalidating a class action waiver in the parties' arbitration agreement, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not foreclose a court from invalidating an arbitration agreement that includes a class action waiver if it effectively denies the plaintiffs a remedy. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently issued an opinion in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant (Amex) holding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA even if a plaintiff proves that the class waiver effectively precludes the plaintiff from vindicating his federal statutory rights. The Massachusetts Supreme Court subsequently concluded that following Amex, the Court's analysis in Feeney II no longer comported with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the FAA, holding instead that a class waiver may not be invalidated on the grounds that it effectively denies the plaintiffs a remedy. Remanded.View "Feeney v. Dell Inc. " on Justia Law

In 2005, a limited liability company and its owners (plaintiffs), on behalf of other similarly situated telephone customers, filed a complaint seeking to certify a class action lawsuit against United Telephone Company of Ohio (UTO), which provided Plaintiffs with telephone service. Plaintiffs claimed that their phone bills from UTO contained unauthorized charges from third parties. The trial court ultimately denied Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the order of the trial court, holding (1) a trial court must conduct a rigorous analysis to ensure the prerequisites of Ohio R. Civ. P. 23, under which plaintiffs must establish seven prerequisites in order to certify a class action, are satisfied; and (2) even though the trial court's consideration of the merits in this case was improper, its order denying certification of the class was correct because Plaintiffs' proposed amended class did not satisfy the prerequisites of Rule 23.View "Stammco, LLC v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio" on Justia Law

Several insureds filed a class action against the predecessor of Washington National Insurance Corporation concerning insurance policies that provide for reimbursement of certain home health care expenses. The district court granted summary judgment for the insureds, concluding that various provisions in the policy, including a certificate schedule, demonstrated an ambiguity concerning whether an automatic increase applied only to the daily benefit or also applied to the lifetime maximum benefit amount and the per occurrence maximum benefit amount. Because there was ambiguity in the policy, the court of appeal certified questions of law to the Florida Supreme Court, which held (1) because the policy was ambiguous, it must be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage without consideration of extrinsic evidence; and (2) when so construed, the policy's automatic benefit increase applies to the daily benefit, the lifetime maximum benefit, and the per occurrence maximum benefit.View "Washington Nat'l Ins. Corp. v. Ruderman" on Justia Law

Under N.Y. Labor Law 196-d, an employer's "agent" may not retain tips. Two former Starbucks baristas brought a putative class action in the U.S. district court alleging that Starbucks' policy of allowing shift supervisors to receive distributions violated section 196-d. The district court concluded that the supervisors could participate in tip pools because their responsibilities did not render them Starbucks agents. Meanwhile, several former Starbucks assistant store managers filed a separate complaint asserting that assistant store managers should be entitled to participate in the tips pools. The U.S. district court concluded that section 196-d does not compel an employer to include any particular eligible employee in a tip pool. On appeal from both cases, the court of appeals certified two questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) an employee whose personal service to patrons is a principal part of his duties may participate in a tip allocation arrangement under section 196-d even if he possesses limited supervisory responsibilities, but an employee granted meaningful control over subordinates is not eligible to participate in a tip pool; and (2) Starbucks' decision to exclude assistant store managers from the tip pool was not contrary to section 196-d.View "Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

This suit was filed as a putative class action on behalf of Texas royalty owners alleging that Phillips Petroleum Company underpaid oil and gas royalties. The trial court certified three subclasses of royalty owners. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed as to two of the subclasses but reversed as to the third subclass, which alleged breach of a uniform express royalty provision contained in gas royalty agreements that amended the class members' leases. On remand, Respondent, class representative of the remaining subclass, amended her petition to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. Phillips unsuccessfully filed various motions contending that there was no class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market. The court of appeals dismissed Phillips' interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied Phillips' petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in dismissing the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the addition of a class claim for breach of the implied covenant to market without requiring Respondent to file an amended motion for class certification or holding a certification hearing.View "Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Yarbrough" on Justia Law