State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reyher
2011 Colo. LEXIS 844
Colo.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Reyher and Dr. Brucker sue State Farm for failing to pay full, reasonable medical expenses under Colorado No-Fault Act and contracts.
- Plaintiffs move to certify two classes: insureds and providers who were reimbursed less than full amount.
- Trial court denied class certification, finding predominance not satisfied due to claim-by-claim reasonableness issues.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding two class-wide theories of liability could satisfy predominance under CRCP 23(b)(3).
- State Farm appeals, contending the trial court’s predominance ruling was not abused and common issues do not predominate.
- Supreme Court reverses, holding individual issues predominate; no abuse of discretion in trial court’s certification decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common questions predominate under CRCP 23(b)(3). | Reyher II shows class-wide theories verify predominance. | Individual claims predominate due to claim-by-claim reasonableness. | Predominance not shown; individual issues predominate. |
| Whether plaintiffs provided a viable class-wide theory of liability. | Two theories show insurer’s improper database reliance and inadequate investigation. | Evidence supports a three-step, non-uniform process; no single class-wide theory. | Trials show no viable class-wide method; common issues insufficient. |
| Whether the trial court properly analyzed the evidence for class certification. | Court of Appeals relied on plaintiffs' allegations, not evidence. | Trial court rigorously evaluated evidence and found predominance lacking. | No abuse of discretion; rigorous analysis supported denial. |
| Whether the court of appeals erred by treating merits questions as non-issues for certification. | Merits-focused disputes can be resolved at certification. | Do not prejudge merits; overlapping issues permissible. | Correct to treat overlapping issues but still adverse to class certification. |
| Whether individual injury proof defeats class certification. | Injury/amount owed can be established on common proof. | Injury determinations are individualized and require separate inquiries. | Not necessary to reach; first issue controls; individualized injuries preclude predominance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 230 P.3d 1244 (Colo.App.2009) (reversed trial court; held predominance could be met by class-wide theories)
- Reyher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 171 P.3d 1263 (Colo.App.2007) (No-Fault reasonableness questions are fact-intensive)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Benzing, 206 P.3d 812 (Colo.2009) (predominance requires class-wide proof of causation)
- Jackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P.3d 874 (Colo.2011) (trial courts may consider overlapping issues for class certification)
- Garcia v. Medved, Inc., 263 P.3d 92 (Colo.2011) (rigorous analysis required; failure to consider evidence defeats certification)
- Buckley Powder Co. v. State, 70 P.3d 547 (Colo.App.2002) (predominance usually involves liability rather than damages)