Blue Ash Auto, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
2016 Ohio 7965
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellants are independent Ohio auto body shops who repaired vehicles insured by Progressive and claim Progressive limited payment for parts, services, and labor rates.
- Appellants allege Progressive’s practices tortiously interfere with their business and violate Progressive’s policies and Ohio law; they seek damages and declaratory relief (indemnification for liability arising from compliance with Progressive’s mandates).
- Appellants proposed a statewide class of non-DRP (non-Direct-Repair-Program) Ohio auto body shops from August 7, 2005 to present.
- The trial court denied class certification, concluding appellants failed to satisfy multiple Civ.R. 23(A) prerequisites and the requirements of Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (B)(3).
- On appeal, the court reviewed only the class-certification determination (abuse-of-discretion standard) and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief (indemnification) is certifiable under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) | The requested declaratory/indemnity relief is classwide and distinct from money damages; it protects shops from liability for following Progressive’s mandates. | Progressive argued relief would not provide final, classwide relief because indemnification would require individualized determinations and would be incidental to monetary claims. | Denied — (B)(2) inapplicable: the requested declaration would require individualized determinations and would merely lay a foundation for subsequent liability/damages determinations. |
| Whether tortious-interference claims satisfy predominance under Civ.R. 23(B)(3) | Common proof can establish Progressive’s course of conduct and denial of necessary parts/services, allowing classwide adjudication of interference and damages. | Progressive argued individual issues (necessity of each part/service, causation, shop-specific facts) would dominate and defeat predominance. | Denied — (B)(3) inapplicable: individualized, repair-by-repair factual inquiries would predominate over common issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373 (2013) (class-certification standards; (B)(2) inapplicable where declaratory relief merely facilitates later damages determinations)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(B)(2) requires a single injunction or declaration that provides classwide relief)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (trial court must apply Civ.R. 23 rigorously; abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance tests class cohesion and manageability for (B)(3))
- Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (declaratory relief that merely lays groundwork for individualized liability is unsuitable for (B)(2) class certification)