Wartick v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
2017 Ark. App. 329
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Adamses, insured by USAA, received actual cash value (ACV) payments in 2009 in which USAA depreciated labor costs. After Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., the Arkansas Supreme Court held labor cannot be depreciated when calculating ACV.
- The Adamses brought a class action against USAA to recover improperly depreciated labor; the parties negotiated and signed a class-action settlement providing payments to timely claimants and $1,850,000 in fees to class counsel.
- The federal case was nonsuited and refiled in Polk County Circuit Court for settlement approval under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(e); the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set procedures for objections, opt-outs, and intervention.
- Appellants Wartick, Meadows, and Siedsma filed an “Objection to Settlement Terms” that included paragraph 23 seeking recognition of a veterans subclass; they also argued at the final-approval hearing they should be allowed to intervene as of right.
- The circuit court concluded paragraph 23 was not a proper motion to intervene (no Rule 24(c) pleading or clear grounds), overruled objections, approved the settlement, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Appellants filed a postjudgment “Amended Motion to Intervene”; the court denied postjudgment intervention as untimely and procedurally deficient. Appellants appealed; the court affirmed for lack of standing because intervention was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 23 of appellants’ objection constituted a timely, proper Rule 24 motion to intervene | Paragraph 23 should be liberally construed as a motion to intervene and/or to recognize a veterans subclass | Paragraph 23 did not state a motion to intervene, set forth grounds, or include a pleading as required by Rule 24(c) | Denied: paragraph 23 was not a proper motion; no accompanying pleading; intervention properly refused |
| Whether postjudgment amended motion to intervene should be allowed | Appellants argued they should be permitted to intervene after judgment | Settlement was already approved and dismissed; appellants delayed without compelling reason and still failed Rule 24(c) pleading requirements | Denied: court did not abuse discretion; postjudgment intervention improperly sought and procedurally deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 430 S.W.3d 675 (Ark. 2013) (labor cannot be depreciated when calculating ACV)
- Hunter v. Runyan, 382 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2011) (unnamed class members who fail to intervene lack standing to appeal settlement approval)
- DeJulius v. Sumner, 282 S.W.3d 753 (Ark. 2009) (standing limits on unnamed class members challenging settlements)
- Ballard v. Advance Am., Cash Advance Ctrs. of Ark., Inc., 79 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2002) (procedural requirements for intervenors and limits on appeals by unnamed class members)
- Luebbers v. Advance Am., Cash Advance Ctrs. of Ark., Inc., 74 S.W.3d 608 (Ark. 2002) (standing and intervention principles for class members)
- Haberman v. Lisle, 884 S.W.2d 262 (Ark. 1994) (intervention and appealability by unnamed class members)
- Lowell v. Lowell, 934 S.W.2d 540 (Ark. App. 1996) (pleading requirement under Rule 24(c) and when courts may excuse strict compliance)