Folks v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 281 F.R.D. 608

Folks, a Colorado pedestrian, seeks enhanced PIP benefits from State Farm for an April 1998 accident; case filed 2004 with individual and putative class claims.
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. involved pedestrians and tolling during Clark’s pendency; Clark I held Brennan retroactive and Clark III/IV dealt with reform and class issues; Clark V affirmed mootness on class representative’s claims but did not resolve all Rule 23 questions.
Colorado No-Fault Act (CAARA) required enhanced PIP; Brennan v. Farmers Alliance held pedestrians must be offered enhanced PIP; Brennan’s remedy included contract reformation.
State Farm initially did not offer enhanced PIP to pedestrians (Pedestrian Limitation); it amended policies in 1998 to remove this limitation (Endorsement 6850AJ).
This Court, reviewing the Magistrate’s denial of class certification, analyzes whether class tolling applies and, separately, whether the class can be certified under Rule 23(a) and 23(b) (or hybrid) without addressing merits, ultimately denying class certification after de novo review.
The Court notes substantial individualized issues (reformation dates and damages) that undermine class treatment despite common liability questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether class claims were timely due to class-action tolling.	Folks argues tolling from Clark keeps her and others timely.	State Farm contends tolling does not extend to non-individual class members.	Novel tolling issue; court ultimately denies class certification; tolling not adopted for the broader class.
Whether the proposed class could be certified under Rule 23(a).	Folks contends numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy are met.	State Farm disputes numerosity and argues individualized inquiries predominate.	Rule 23(a) elements largely satisfied except numerosity under the circumstances; adequacy/commonality/typicality satisfied.
Whether Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate given the relief sought.	Declaratory relief on reformation could bind the class.	Individualized reformation and damages prevent class-wide relief.	Not appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) due to lack of cohesive, class-wide injunctive relief.
Whether Rule 23(b)(3) certification is appropriate.	Damages and reformation can be certified as a superordinate class.	Predominance and superiority are undermined by individualized relief issues.	Not appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3); predominance and superiority not satisfied.
Whether the case should be certified as a hybrid 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) class.	Propose bifurcated relief stages.	Hybrid certification still fails due to individualized relief issues.	Hybrid certification denied.

American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolling for class members after denial of certification)
Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (suspends statute for all class members until denial of certification)
Boellstorff, 540 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2008) (tolling during pendency of a related class action; limits applicability)
Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir. 1987) (limits on tolling when attempting second class action post-denial)
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2003) (retroactivity of Brennan and reformation framework)
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 245 F.R.D. 478 (D. Colo. 2007) (Clark IV: class issues and numerosity guidance)
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2009) (Clark V: mootness; class certification review guidance)
Reed v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2475130 (D. Colo. 2008) (D. Colo. decision cited in tolling context)
Reed v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir. 1988) (illustrative tolling considerations)
McKowan Lowe & Co., Ltd. v. Jasmine, Ltd., 295 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2002) (class certification standards; tolling context)
Basch v. The Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (class action timing and tolling)