63 So. 3d 1268
Ala.2010Background
- Edwards sued Baldwin Mutual for breach of contract arising from Katrina loss; he sought ICV and argued 20% contractor overhead and profit should be included in actual cash value.
- Edwards proposed a class of Baldwin Mutual insureds in Alabama with six defining criteria focusing on losses paid on an actual cash value basis and excluding those with overhead/GP omitted.
- An evidentiary hearing on class certification occurred Oct. 15, 2009, addressing the original class and evidence of Katrina/Ivan losses.
- Edwards later revised the class definition in his Nov. 6, 2009 brief to expand/modify the eligibility and exclude certain losses, including removing the actual cash value payment requirement.
- Baldwin Mutual objected to the revised class, arguing it expanded the class beyond what was heard and violated § 6-5-641, potentially prejudicing its ability to challenge certification.
- On Mar. 1, 2010, the trial court certified the revised class, leading Baldwin Mutual to appeal seeking reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revised class definition violated § 6-5-641 by expanding without a new hearing. | Edwards contends revised class is proper for certification. | Baldwin Mutual argues expansion without a hearing prejudices it and violates § 6-5-641. | Reversed; trial court exceeded discretion by certifying a newly defined class without a new hearing. |
| Whether the trial court conducted a proper rigorous analysis for the redefined class. | Edwards asserts rigorous analysis was conducted on the revised class. | Baldwin Mutual asserts no adequate hearing or analysis for the revised class. | Unnecessary to reach beyond holding that certification was improper without a new hearing. |
| Whether certification of any class was proper under § 6-5-641 and Rule 23. | Edwards seeks class certification under defined criteria. | Baldwin Mutual contends the criteria and process violated statutory requirements. | Court did not reach merits of certification due to defective redefinition and lack of proper hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disch v. Hicks, 900 So.2d 399 (Ala. 2004) (requires a hearing for class-certification when requested and proper recording of proceedings)
- Ex parte Caremark RX, Inc., 956 So.2d 1117 (Ala. 2006) (rigorous analysis requires opportunity to oppose proposed certification)
- Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So.2d 34 (Ala. 2001) (supports rigorous analysis of Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Compass Bank v. Snow, 823 So.2d 667 (Ala. 2001) (standard for review of class-certification orders)
- U-Haul Co. of Alabama, Inc. v. Johnson, 893 So.2d 307 (Ala. 2004) (standard of de novo review for legal determinations in class certification)