The decisions in the case of In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 872 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2017), came out of a hailstorm.
The storm struck Ms. Amanda LaBrier's home in St. Louis, Missouri, damaging the home's exterior roof, siding, and gutters. She made a claim under her homeowner's policy with State Farm. The policy provided "Coverage A - Dwelling" property insurance coverage on a "replacement cost" basis. "Until actual repair or replacement is completed," however, the policy provided that the carrier would pay "only the actual cash value at the time of the loss of the damaged part of the property," but not more than "the cost to repair or replace the damaged part." In that instance, the policy was in essence on a "replacement cost" basis for an "actual cash value."
State Farm made Ms. LaBrier an offer which she could -- and did -- refuse. State Farm was ready to pay the policy requirement of "actual cash value" which in this case included an element of depreciation to account for the age of Ms. LaBrier's roof before it was shot with hail pellets.
Ms. LaBrier apparently thought that she could do better than that, because she rejected State Farm's offer, hired a family friend to replace the roof, and sent State Farm the bill for the whole thing. The trial court ruled in her favor, effectively equating "replacement cost" with whatever-it-costs even though the policy limited the carrier's obligation to pay "actual cash value" for any replacement. The district court accordingly denied State Farm's motion to dismiss. In a separate order, the district court overruled State Farm's objections to answering voluminous interrogatories about the claims of "putative class members."
Only later did the trial court also enter an order certifying a class of similarly situated State Farm policyholders.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's with directions to dismiss Ms. LaBrier's coverage claim and thereby to deny her motion to certify a class of State Farm homeowners to whom State Farm denied allegedly similar coverage claims.
The procedural posture of this appeal is interesting. The trial court's denial of State Farm's motion to dismiss was never appealed, apparently. The appellate court tells us that State Farm appealed two things in two appellate proceedings. First, State Farm petitioned for a writ of mandamus that the district court "vacate what it alleges are overly-burdensome [sic] discovery orders." In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 571.
State Farm's second appeal was its only other appeal in this case, and it did not request appellate review of the trial court's order denying State Farm's motion to dismiss in this second appeal, either. State Farm's second appeal in this case came when it requested and the Eighth Circuit granted "State Farm leave to appeal the class certification," which the Eighth Circuit thereafter consolidated with State Farm's other appeal, the State Farm petition for a writ of mandamus. In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 572.
When the appellate panel reversed the class certification order it also reversed the district court's order denying State Farm's motion to dismiss. You might have thought that the appellate panel would also naturally grant State Farm's mandamus petition since the panel "vacated" the lower court's orders "upholding premature classwide discovery[.]" If you thought that, as I did, then you and I would both be wrong. After saying that it vacated the lower court's discovery orders, thereafter the panel concluded its opinion with these other words: "In light of this disposition [i.e., dismissal], State Farm's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot." In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 577.
Go figure.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mark your Calendar!
You and your clients can sign up for health insurance starting next week on November 1, 2017 at https://www.healthcare.gov.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments