Benavides v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
2011 WL 1107009
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Benavides sued Chicago Title for failing to provide the R-8 reissue discount on Texas title insurance.
- Texas Rule R-8 provides a mandatory discount for refinancings within seven years of the prior policy.
- District court denied class certification, finding no class-wide questions that predominate.
- Benavides alleged RESPA and state-law theories; RESPA claim was dismissed on summary judgment.
- District court identified seven potential common questions, most requiring individual proofs, and noted only one common question existed.
- Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. was decided after the district court’s ruling and considered for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predominance standard application | Benavides contends predominance is met by common liability questions. | Chicago Title argues predominance fails due to individualized proof. | No predominance; district court did not err in denial. |
| Mims control over class certification | Benavides relies on Mims to support class-wide liability questions. | Chicago Title says Mims does not compel class-wide liability questions here. | Mims does not control; district court properly analyzed common questions. |
| Existence of common class-wide questions | Benavides asserts common questions about eligibility for the discount apply class-wide. | Chicago Title argues most issues require individualized inquiry. | No true class-wide questions; most issues require individual determinations. |
| Abuse of discretion in denial of certification | Benavides contends district court misapplied Rule 23 prerequisites. | Chicago Title asserts proper, rigorous analysis was performed. | District court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mims v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 590 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2009) (class certification context; no automatic class-wide liability; underpinnings discussed)
- Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (rigorous analysis for Rule 23 prerequisites)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (predominance and superiority requirements for Rule 23(b)(3))
- Steering Comm. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 461 F.3d 598 (5th Cir. 2006) (predominance requires understanding of claims and substantive law)
- O'Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2003) (abuse of discretion review standard; rigorous analysis required)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 1997) (class action certification standards and predominance)