Hunter v. Runyan, 2011 Ark. 43

Settling Plaintiffs filed a class action in Pulaski County against the Company over underpayment of benefits based on the policy term “actual charges.”
The class action sought monetary and nonmonetary relief, including a declaration of the meaning of “actual charges” and protection against premium increases.
A nationwide, multi-case settlement was reached and preliminarily approved, binding six related federal actions.
Notice was sent to over 250,000 potential class members; about 9 objectors appeared at the fairness hearing, including Crager, Hunter, and Shepherd.
Crager, Hunter, and Shepherd sought intervention; Crager also challenged final settlement approval; the circuit court denied intervention requests and then approved the settlement.
Crager appeals the denial of intervention and the final settlement; Hunter and Shepherd appeal the denial of their intervention, challenging procedural defects and merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the class settlement	Shepherd argues amendment 80 precludes jurisdiction due to lack of adversity	Company/Settling Plaintiffs contend Rule 23(e) requires court review and confers jurisdiction	The circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 23(e) and amendment 80.
Whether Crager has standing to appeal the settlement denial	Crager attempted to intervene but remained in the class	Crager lacks standing to appeal since unnamed class members who do not intervene cannot appeal	Crager’s appeal is dismissed for lack of standing.
Whether Hunter and Shepherd validly intervened under Rule 24	Intervention was warranted to protect their interests	Motions were procedurally defective or lacked a pleaded claim to intervene	Motions denied for failure to comply with Rule 24(c) and for lack of adequate intervention showing; no abuse of discretion.
Whether unnamed objectors/de facto delays justify denial of intervention and affect due process	Objectors sought to protect rights; delay harms class members	Delay and need for orderly settlement justify denial	Delay grounds supported denial of permissive intervention; due-process concerns preserved for appellate review in other contexts.

Ballard v. Advance Am., 349 Ark. 545, 79 S.W.3d 835, 349 Ark. 545 ((2002)) (unnamed class members lacking intervention cannot appeal settlements)
DeJulius v. Sumner, 373 Ark. 156, 282 S.W.3d 753, 373 Ark. 156 ((2008)) (control of intervention standing and abandonment rules reaffirmed)
Haberman v. Lisle, 317 Ark. 600, 884 S.W.2d 262, 317 Ark. 600 ((1994)) (intervention and standing principles in class actions)
Luebbers v. Advance Am., 348 Ark. 567, 74 S.W.3d 608, 348 Ark. 567 ((2002)) (standing and related appeals by unnamed class members)
Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 122 S. Ct. 2005, 536 U.S. 1 ((2002)) (rule for unnamed class members to appeal in federal context)
MacSteel Division of Quanex v. Ark. Oklahoma Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22, 210 S.W.3d 878 ((2005)) (distinguishes jurisdictional concepts from justiciability under Arkansas law)
UHS of Ark., Inc. v. Charter Hosp. of Little Rock, Inc., 297 Ark. 8, 759 S.W.2d 204 ((1988)) (declaratory judgment jurisdiction not conferred; need independent equitable basis)