Cullen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
137 Ohio St. 3d 373
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Cullen alleged State Farm failed to disclose a cash-out option for windshield claims and used a script to steer repairs instead of replacement.
- Trial court certified Cullen’s class under Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3); appellate court affirmed certification but limited the class.
- Court considered whether declaratory relief could be certified under 23(B)(2) where monetary relief predominates.
- Class spanned claims from 1991–present with varying policies and Windshield handling via Lynx Services since 1996.
- Appellate court did not properly assess predominance; some merits questions overlapped with class issues, prompting reversal and remand.
- Major issue: whether Civ.R. 23(B)(2) or (B)(3) supports class treatment given individualized damages and merits-based questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Civ.R. 23(B)(2) certification is appropriate. | Cullen seeks declaratory relief for the class; relief would be common. | State Farm argues damages predominate and 23(B)(2) is inappropriate. | Not appropriate; declaratory relief incidental to damages. |
| Whether Civ.R. 23(B)(3) predominance doctrine supports class. | Common issues predominate due to standardized policies. | Individual questions about preloss, windshields, and consents predominate. | Predominance not shown; individualized issues overwhelm common ones. |
| Did the trial court conduct a rigorous analysis for certification? | Trial court properly found colorable common issues. | Court failed to adequately examine underlying merits and individualized questions. | Abuse of discretion; certification reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (limits 23(b)(2) to indivisible injunctive relief; damages not certifiable.)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (rigorous analysis required; common questions must predominate.)
- Marks v. C.P. Chem. Co., Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 200 (1987) (federal guidance aids Ohio Civ.R. 23 interpretation.)
- Ojalvo v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 12 Ohio St.3d 230 (1984) (class cert. does not turn on merits; rigorous analysis required.)
- Hamilton v. Ohio Sav. Bank, 82 Ohio St.3d 67 (1998) (rigorous analysis needed; injunctive relief not automatic.)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (2005) (illustrates need for individualized preloss determinations.)
- Katzman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir.2011) (emphasizes that some injuries require individualized proof.)