State of W.Va. ex rel. Erie Insurance Property & Casualty v. Hon. David W. Nibert, 16-0884

Decedent Emily Hardman died in a 2006 automobile accident; her estate recovered tortfeasor policy limits and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her parents’ Erie policy.
Erie had UIM limits of $20,000 per person/$40,000 per occurrence but higher liability limits; Erie refused to pay liability limits, tendering only the $20,000 UIM limit by interpleader.
The estate sued Erie for declaratory relief and added class-action allegations asserting Erie used nonconforming UIM election/rejection forms required by W. Va. Code § 33-6-31d.
The Jackson County circuit court certified a class limited to Erie insureds who suffered UIM injuries and did not receive UIM benefits at least equal to policy liability limits, focusing on whether Erie used the Commissioner’s prescribed form.
Erie petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the class-certification order; the Supreme Court of Appeals granted the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of a nonconforming UIM offer form satisfies Rule 23 commonality	Thomas-based uniform legal question (loss of statutory presumption) is common to all class members	Individualized Bias inquiries (was offer effective; was rejection knowing) dominate and preclude classwide resolution	Court held noncompliance alone does not satisfy commonality; class certification was improper
Whether class certification can be limited to resolving only validity of Erie’s form	Class may be certified to resolve single, dispositive common legal question about the form	Even if form question is common, resolution won’t resolve central Bias issues for each class member	Court held deciding form validity would not avoid individualized determinations required by Bias
Proper standard for reviewing class certification	Certification met Rule 23 requirements as court found uniform defective form usage	Review under abuse-of-discretion; must analyze all Rule 23(a) requirements including commonality	Court applied abuse-of-discretion and found certification clearly erroneous as to commonality
Appropriateness of writ of prohibition to challenge class certification	Writ not necessary; appeal sufficient	Writ proper when class certification is improvident and appellate relief may be inadequate	Court granted writ, citing precedent that prohibition is preferable to appeal for improvident class standing

Thomas v. McDermitt, 232 W. Va. 159 (W. Va. 2013) (failure to use Commissioner’s UIM form causes loss of statutory presumption and reversion to Bias standard)
Bias v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 179 W. Va. 125 (W. Va. 1987) (insurer bears burden to prove effective offer and that insured’s rejection was knowing and informed)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires classwide contention capable of resolving central issues in one stroke)
Martin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 809 F. Supp. 2d 496 (S.D. W. Va. 2011) (holding noncompliance with Commissioner’s form leads to individualized Bias inquiries that defeat commonality)
Blake v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 523 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (use of allegedly inadequate rejection form did not supply sufficient commonality where individual negotiations and circumstances predominated)
In re West Virginia Rezulin Litig., 214 W. Va. 52 (W. Va. 2003) (standard for Rule 23 class certification review: must satisfy Rule 23(a) prerequisites and one subdivision of 23(b))