Agents Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benham
Decision Date | 30 January 2020 |
Docket Number | No. CV-18-918,CV-18-918 |
Citation | 2020 Ark. 39,591 S.W.3d 799 |
Parties | AGENTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant v. Melissa BENHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellee |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
David A. Hodges, Little Rock, for appellant.
Putman Law Office, by: William B. Putnam; and Taylor Law Partners, Fayetteville, by: Steven E. Vowell, for appellee
Appellant, Agent Mutual Insurance Company (AMIC), brings an interlocutory appeal of the Sebastian County Circuit Court's order certifying a class action filed by appellee Melissa Benham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 26, 2013, Benham filed a class-action complaint asserting causes of action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Benham's complaint alleged that AMIC improperly depreciated the cost of labor in the payment of certain claims for dwelling or structure damages. On June 1, 2018, Benham filed a motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. On September 17, 2018, the circuit court entered an order granting Benham's motion. On the same day, the circuit court also entered an order denying, in part, AMIC's "Objections and Motion for Protective Order" on certain discovery.
AMIC brings this interlocutory appeal and presents two issues: (1) the circuit court erred in granting the motion for class certification and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in denying, in part, AMIC's objections and motion for protective order. Because the class-certification order at issue does not comply with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), we remand this matter with instructions.
An interlocutory appeal may be taken from an order certifying a case as a class action in accordance with Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Circuit courts are given broad discretion in matters regarding class certification, and we will not reverse a circuit court's decision to grant or deny class certification absent an abuse of discretion. ChartOne, Inc. v. Raglon , 373 Ark. 275, 283 S.W.3d 576 (2008). When reviewing a circuit court's class-certification order, this court reviews the evidence contained in the record to determine whether it supports the circuit court's decision. Teris, LLC v. Golliher , 371 Ark. 369, 266 S.W.3d 730 (2007). Our focus is "whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met," and "it is totally immaterial whether the petition will succeed on the merits or even if it states a cause of action."
Philip Morris Cos. v. Miner , 2015 Ark. 73, at 3, 462 S.W.3d 313, 316 (quoting Am. Abstract & Title Co. v. Rice , 358 Ark. 1, 9, 186 S.W.3d 705, 710 (2004) ).
Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions and class certification. The rule provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.)
Having considered the requirements of Rule 23, we now turn to the circuit court's order granting class certification:
However, the circuit court failed to comply with the remainder of Rule 23(b)'s requirements to define the "class claims, issues, or defenses. As we explained in Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Pinson , 2017 Ark. 315, 530 S.W.3d 854, the circuit court's failure to define the class claims, issues, or defenses, as required by Rule 23(b), prevents this court from conducting a meaningful review of the order. See also Koppers, Inc. v. Trotter , 2019 Ark. 134, 572 S.W.3d 372....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rivera-Ceren v. Presidential Limousine & Auto Sales, Inc.
...affirmed, when the circuit court's order granting certification failed to contain sufficient findings. E.g. , Agents Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benham , 2020 Ark. 39, 591 S.W.3d 799 ; Koppers, Inc. v. Trotter , 2019 Ark. 134, 572 S.W.3d 372 ; Industrial Welding Supplies of Hattiesburg, LLC v. Pinson ......