*1 CAMBANIS, A. Julia Administratrix the Estate of Louis Deceased,
Cambanis, Appellant, COMPANY, Corporation. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued March 1985.
Filed Oct.
Reargument Denied Dec. *3 Zoffer,
Joseph M. for Pittsburgh, appellant. Dornish,
Bradley Pittsburgh, appellee. BROSKY, LEDERER, Before: WIEAND JJ.* BROSKY, Judge:
This is from an class certification. appeal denying order alia, inter conclude, in holding We that the trial court erred is precedent establishing inconsistent with class status. we reverse and remand for the Accordingly, as a class action. proceed case History
Facts and Procedural Cambanis, A. administratrix of the Appellant, Julia Cambanis, her deceased estate of Louis husband. operated by an was struck motor vehicle decedent As Company, appellee. Insurance insured Nationwide result, later. At the time of Louis Cambanis died two days old, receiving he retired and Social years his death was 85 covered, at The accident least Security benefits. was Pennsylvania’s No-Fault Motor part, by provisions Act, July Insurance Act of P.L. No. Vehicle seq.1 et paid 40 P.S. 1009.101 Nationwide has surviv- § loss, expense appellant. benefits to or’s funeral and medical loss bene- a claim for No-Fault work Appellant submitted 202(b); liabili- fits, 1009.201, appellee denied P.S. §§ complaint then filed a Appellant for such ty benefits. of the estate of her deceased appellee on behalf against others who and as of the class all representative husband loss similarly denied No-Fault work wrongfully had been A on of class certification hearing propriety benefits. held, opinion denying and order following which was *4 entered.2 class certification were * Lederer, Judge, Senior of the Court Common William J. Honorable sitting designation. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, is Pleas of 1009.205(c). 1. § 40 P.S. "requires to file Pennsylvania the court Rule of Civil Procedure 1710 accompanying an re- opinion an of certification or order order deci- fusing certify____ opinion set forth the basis for The must fact, sion, appropriate including findings of law and conclusions 1702, specified in 1708 and 1709” the matters Rules discussion of See prerequisites and criteria for certification. set forth which
45
Appealability
Scope
Review
An
denying
order
class certification is
final and
appealable order. Bell v.
Consumer Discount
Beneficial
Co.,
v.
Janicik
Pruden
(1975);
465 Pa.
Burden of Proof
The
proof
burden
in class
proceed
certification
Time,
ing is on the party seeking
certification. Klemow v.
Inc.,
v. United States
(1976);
466 Pa.
46 Janicik,
In the rationale for the explained this Court low of proof. burden at the class certification stage proceedings which
[T]he trial is determined and the court’s extensive initially to be actions the need powers over class obviate supervisory A proof. for a strict burden of not make the close of class action determination until after initial proponent that pleadings to ensure capable surviving a non-frivolous claim presenting 1707____ Through- Pa.R.Civ.P. preliminary objections. action, extensive powers out the class the court has and to ensure efficient conduct protect absent members See, (subclasses and e.g., Pa.R.Civ.P. 1710 the action. (conduct actions); issues); (approv- limiting fees)---- settlements); counsel The (approving ing alter, if or revoke the certification modify, court may litigation in the reveal some later developments not certification is satisfied. Pa.R.Civ.P. prerequisite 1710, 1711.... A.2d 455. Pa.Super. at at supra, 305 omitted).
(Citations Opinion
Trial Court for prerequisites all certification opinion states that not find that a class The trial court did one were met. but adjudica- efficient method of be a “fair and action would in Pa.R. tion,” enumerated prerequisites the last of five 1702(5).5 Civ.P. preceding 1701. Where Explanatory Pa.R.Civ.P. See Note either. upon or taken verba- Pennsylvania’s rules are fashioned class action particularly case law is Rule then federal Federal tim from the Klemow, McMonagle binding. supra; v. Allstate instructive but not (1975) dissenting); (Spaeth, J. Pa. 331 A.2d
Insurance Bell, n. n. 465 Pa. and efficient deciding would a "fair a class action In whether adjudication” court considered the criteria the trial method of 1708(a); set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. a determination as such method is a fair and efficient determining whether class action among controversy, adjudicating court shall consider (c). (a), (b) and set forth in subdivisions the criteria other matters As the it, trial court part saw on appellee *6 foregone conclusion. was This from its interpre- followed of tation the 1983 Pennsylvania Court Supreme decision in v. Donegal Freeze Mutual Insurance 504 Pa. (1983). Freeze According
A.2d to the trial court pro- nounced on part the of the insurance company to work loss to pay benefits estates appellant’s. such as court trial then in concluded that issue this case is “[t]he not one of This liability.” was seen to reduce the issues in one, case the to damages. such, As the believed case was not appropriate for class action treatment since it required separate hearings each member of the class. Freeze,
Consistent with trial interpretation court’s there were that findings there was no risk of varying adjudications due to the mechanical and routine processing of work loss as Act; benefits set forth in the No-Fault presented Nationwide would incompatible not be with stan- conduct; dards class members’ interests would not ( n ) monetary recovery sought, Where alone is the court shall consider (1) predominate whether common of law or fact over members; any question only affecting individual (2) likely the size of the class and the to be difficulties encoun- action; management tered in the of the action as a class (3) prosecution separate by against whether the actions or individual members the class would a risk of create (i) varying adjudications respect inconsistent or with to individu- party al opposing members of the which would confront conduct; incompatible the class with standards of (ii) adjudications respect with members of individual practical dispositive which would as a matter be of the interests of parties adjudications substantially other members not to the or interests; impair impede ability protect or their their (4) any litigation already by the extent and nature commenced issues; against involving any or members of the class of the same (5) particular litigation appropriate whether the forum is for the class; of the claims of the entire ( n ) complexities whether in of the of the view issues or the expenses separate litigation the claims of individual class mem- actions; support separate bers are amount to insufficient in (7) likely whether it is that the amount which be recovered by will in relation to the individual class members be so small expense administering justify as not to effort of action class action. or impeded foreclosed individual work loss determina-
tions.6 an inconvenience in perceived requir-
The trial also from ing litigate estates across the Commonwealth to their forum inconven- Allegheny County making claims — and inappropriate. ient
Analysis
was,
of liability
The trial court held that
the issue
against
decided
At
by precedent,
appellee.
governed
held,
time the trial court so
this was not an accurate
statement;
yet
for that
issue had
to be decided.7
was liable to
concluding
appellee
appellant,
*7
v. Donegal
Freeze
holding in
on the
trial court
relied
Co.,
Mutual Insurance
(1983)—
Pa.
Second,
if,
law,
even
as a matter of
some people have a
right
compensation,
established,
would still have to be
matter,
as a factual
that appellant is within that category.
The case of Minear v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Co.,
Insurance
309 Pa.Super
(1983)
When appellant’s here, claim is then she and all others similarly right situated have a to commence an action Fox v. State Farm Mutual compel payment. Automobile Insurance 322 Pa.Super. Matza,
(1983). potential Under for liability is now clear. potential Whether that will be realized must be determined by application court’s of the to the law facts as estab is, therefore, lished. The issue of liability both unresolved and a common one shared the class.
[*]
[*]
'‘f
H:
*8
‡
sjs
enough
It is not
that there are issues common to the class
in order for class action treatment to
appropriate;
be
those
1708(a)(1).
common issues must predominate. Pa.R.Civ.P.
common, predominant
judice
sub
The
issue
propriety
of appellee’s practice
denying
No-Fault work loss bene-
fits to estates of
persons
retired
who have lost Social
Nye v. Erie
due to the accident.
Security payments
Insurance
Exchange,
Pa.Super.
If is not this all the class to maintain members will be forced to file suits to vindicate individual of a into rights. their To thrust numerous members separate actions of judicial would be intolerable waste expedi- of all be plaintiffs may resources when the claims a settled in one suit. Class actions can be fair tiously resolving subject and to disputes efficient method of expensive hazards parties system litigation in this context would eviscerate separate de- “procedural of the class action device purpose handling in the signed promote efficiency fairness similar numbers of claims.” large Nye, A.2d 678.9 Pa.Superior Ct. at Farm Mutual Insurance
In Allessandro State (1978), many case in Pa.Super. bar, also held that a class to the one at we respects similar based on proper. cause action was action was the insurer payments reduction of uninsured motorist’s no coverage. We can discern payments under the medical Nye case from ground distinguishing for the instant valid or Allessandro.
# >!< [*] >H [*] # separate denied certification because The trial court also would, in the effi- hearings damages opinion, its defeat on loss estab- “Since the has ciency of the class action. case, require hearings it separate would lished in each of the class.” each member separate in its that perception correct
The trial court was however, erred, required; will damage determinations bars a class action. this circumstance concluding that as to the amount It is well-established ABC preclude do a class action. damages not individual Cleaning, (1981); 219, 438 A.2d Pa.Super. Sewer Pennsylvania, 467 Pa. See Lillian v. Commonwealth also Klemow, supra. (1976); McMonagle, supra; A.2d 250
51 Ross v. Shawmut Development Corp., 460 Pa. 333 (1975); Janicik, A.2d 751 1 supra; Newburg on Class 1155(a) (c). so, Actions and If this not were would § rare, indeed, that a class action ever would be certified. (How often would members ever suffer identical dam- ages?)10
Pennsylvania Rules of
1710, 1713
Civil Procedure
and
grant
1714
the court extensive powers
manage
action. These include the ability to limit the class action as
issues,11
subclasses,12
divide the class
approve
into
settle
13
ments
and
conduct of the action.14 In Janicik
monitor
this Court
stated that:
“The court
rely
should
on the
and
ingenuity
aid of counsel
upon
its plenary authority
to control
the action
solve
management
whatever
prob
lems litigation
bring.”
supra, 305 Pa.Super.
12. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1710(c)(2).
13. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1714(a).
14. Pa.R.Civ.P.
1713(a).
liability
separated
issue of
can be
from
of individual
damage
deciding
predominate
when
if
or
common issues of law
fact
questions.
Co.,
City Philadelphia
over
v.
individual
American Oil
(D.C.N.J.1971);
Thornhill, Inc.,
Wyllie
F.R.D.
Frankel v.
(D.C.W.D.Va.1972).
Kronenberg
Clinton,
F.R.D. 330
See also
v. Hotel
Inc.,
(S.D.N.Y.1966);
Jacquelin,
Sommers v. Lincoln Abraham and Loan F.R.D. 581 *10 estates, of individual then the of the amounts question damages will be considered. a mathe damages determined may
Where be considered a may and be matical or formula calculation task, proper. then a class action be Wind- mechanical to determine how it the trial court ham, supra. leave to We handled, ob not without issue should but damage of in the business industry is that the insurance serving handles routinely and utilizing actuarial tables creating and damages of due The amount loss claims. No-Fault work calcula straight-forward appear each estate would is, therefore, damage issue tion once is shown. class action treatment.16 suitable for
[*]
[*]
#
[*]
[*]
#
concentrat
concerned about
also
The trial
was
of Common
Allegheny County Court
in the
ing
litigation
the Com
located across
forcing estates
thereby
and
Pleas
their
prove
Allegheny County
come to
monwealth to
indeed,
incon
seem
may,
The forum
damages.17
individual
consideration,
conclude that
we
venient, but, upon careful
is not.
Litigation,
Amendments Damages in Rule Liability (1960-1); Bifurcation Solution, Problems, Policy, and a 23(b)(3) History, Actions: Class Legalized (1982); Legalized Blackmail S.W.L.J. 743 Theft: Of Dilemma, 47 Substance —Procedure and the Actions Consumer Class Proce (1974); Reforming Class Action Federal 861-3 S.Cal.L.Rev. Proposal, Harv.J.L. Department Analysis Justice An dure: 16. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1708(a)(5). 1708(a)(5). Pa.R.Civ.P.
Proof of damages would consist of a primarily showing documents and not extended from testimony numerous sources.18 The trial court may also consider the use of 1006, allowing Pa.R.Civ.P. change of venue for damage determinations should a party so move.19
The trial court also supported its denial of certification on
ground
that there was no risk of inconsistent adjudica-
tion in
light
decision,
the Freeze
supra, and that there
was no risk of other class
being impeded
members’ interests
or foreclosed.
this
Court said that:
*11
Finding such risks is not essential to certifying
class,
exist,
‘if
but
they
they will be forceful arguments in
support of the
approval
the class action.’ The court
below held that the principle of stare
and proper
decisis
application of fundamental
principles
contract
would elim-
inate any risks of
adjudications.
inconsistent
Such rea-
soning ignores the rule’s exhortation to address this
practical
consideration “as a
matter.” Courts may, and
do,
often
in
differ
resolving
similar
presenting
issues
law or fact. The precedential effect of a deci-
sion,
incorrect,
if
even
may
chilling
have a
effect on the
claims, and,
assertion of similar
expir-
combined with the
ing
limitation,
of statutes of
often
may
“substantially
or
impair
impede” potential litigants’ ability
protect
to
Moreover,
their interests.
with
related criteria
concerning the complexity
expenses
and
of litigation,
1708(a)(6),
Pa.R.Civ.P.
the court may
parties’
consider the
respective
circumstances and
ability
pursue separate
that,
established,
again
damage
18. We note
if
is
calculations
likely
should be routine and
a matter for
out
court settlement.
concept
considering
desirability
concentrating
19. litigation
particular
in a
forum was borrowed from the federal statute.
1, 1160(d),
Newburg, supra, at Vol. §
states that such a concentration
first,
aspects:
promotes judicial economy by
has two
that it
concen-
court; and, second,
trating claims in front of one
venue considera-
tion—whether the forum selected is the best forum to hear the claim.
ability
system,
With the
factor should no
to transfer actions within the federal
this
longer
have much force. In the case at bar there is
action,
no one Common Pleas Court which would be better to hear the
liability may
and a limited trial on
obviate the concern for the forum’s
convenience.
conducts
statewide and
Appellee
may
actions.
business
inconsistent standards of conduct.
thus
subject
members,
those
smaller
especially
with
Many
claims,
protecting
to afford the costs of
may be unable
All claims
through separate
interest
actions.
arise
their
identical contract
virtually
from
lan-
interpretation
adjudica-
so that
a small risk of inconsistent
guage,
even
action,
compared
The class
when
unnecessary.
tions
criterion,
speedier
affords the
actions under this
separate
more
statewide determination of the
comprehensive
claim,
thus,
recovery
means to ensure
if
the better
appellee repeti-
or to
proves
spare
the claim
meritorious
if
not.
litigation
it does
piecemeal
tive
143-44,
Conclusion *12 of law or that common summary, we hold questions; there any individual predominate fact over management problems; separate no size or seems be incompati- adjudications inconsistent yield actions could is appropriate. and the forum appellee; ble standards in this case that a class action these reasons we hold For Ac- adjudication. efficient method of a fair and would be disagreed with the rationale Federal courts have 20. We note that Film Inc. v. Paramount expressed In Goldman Theatres in Janicik. 35, (E.D.Pa.1969) that ‘‘[t]he a federal court stated Corp., 49 F.R.D. right action to a class not intend to create of Rule 23 ... did drafters might precedent cited as ... opinion in one suit simply because an rule, every action would then almost If this were the in another. v. also Richardson being brought a class action." See susceptible of 413, (E.D.Pa.1974); Lan- Corp., 62 F.R.D. Hamilton International 992, (S.D.N.Y.1973); Alsup Manhattan, F.Supp. v. Chase dau (N.D.Cal.1972). Montgomery F.R.D. Ward and v. reverse, cordingly, we certify the class and remand for the go case to forward as a class action consistent with this opinion.
WIEAND, J., files a dissenting statement.
WIEAND, Judge, dissenting:
I I respectfully dissent. would affirm for the reasons set opinion
forth of the trial court. TUCKER, Jacqueline Tucker, Louis and and Christine H/W by Guardians, Jacqueline Her Parents and Louis and
Tucker, Appellants,
v. TRAVEL, Apple WHITAKER LTD. and Tours and the Ambassa- Happy dor Beach Hotel and Trails Stables and the Hotel Corporation of the Bahamas the Ambassador Beach T/A Hotel. TUCKER, Jacqueline Tucker,
Louis and and Christine H/W Guardians, Jacqueline Her Parents and Louis and Tucker, Appellants, TRAVEL, Apple Happy WHITAKER LTD. and Tours and Corporation Trails Stables and the Hotel of the Bahamas the Ambassador Beach Hotel. T/A
Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued April 1985.
Filed Oct.
Reargument Denied Dec.