Artie's Auto Body v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Decision Date | 03 June 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 17797.,17797. |
Citation | 947 A.2d 320,287 Conn. 208 |
Parties | ARTIE'S AUTO BODY, INC., et al. v. The HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, were Craig A. Raabe, Edward J. Heath and Andrea Donovan Napp, Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).
David A. Slossberg, with whom were Allison Near, Milford, Alan Neigher, Westport, Robert J. Berg, pro hac vice, and Ronald J. Aranoff, pro hac vice, New York, NY, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and SULLIVAN, Js.
The defendant, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company (The Hartford), appeals from the ruling of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiffs, three Connecticut auto body repair shops and a trade association of Connecticut auto body repair shops,1 for class certification. The plaintiffs, who seek money damages and injunctive relief, allege that The Hartford engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA),2 General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. ( ), and was unjustly enriched as a result thereof (count three). On appeal,3 The Hartford claims that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification because common issues of law or fact do not predominate over questions affecting individual members with respect to proof of The Hartford's liability under CUTPA. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the trial court's order granting class certification.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On July 16, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against The Hartford on behalf of themselves and all other persons and entities licensed to perform auto body repairs in Connecticut4 who had been substantially harmed by The Hartford's practices. The complaint alleged unfair and deceptive acts or practices on the following grounds. First, The Hartford improperly steered insureds5 to a closed network of preferred auto body repair shops that charged labor rates well below reasonable market value. The shops, which The Hartford describes as direct repair program shops (preferred shops), have a contractual relationship with The Hartford to repair damaged automobiles that The Hartford refers to them. Second, The Hartford improperly established an artificially low standard or prevailing hourly rate for reimbursement to shops that were not in the network of preferred shops (nonpreferred shops), including those of the plaintiffs and members of the plaintiffs' putative class. Third, The Hartford provided positive and negative incentives to purportedly independent insurance appraisers to encourage or pressure them into accepting monetary and other limits proposed by The Hartford.6 Moreover, the appraisers acceded to these incentives and regularly conformed to the proposed limits in their appraisals. The appraisers also advised and requested insureds to direct their business to the preferred shops and away from the plaintiffs and other members of the putative class. The plaintiffs thus claimed that they had lost business and were forced to charge below market labor rates that had been set by The Hartford's appraisers and charged by the preferred shops.
On August 15, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The parties briefed the issue, and the trial court heard oral argument in March, 2006. On August 30, 2006, the court determined that the requirements for class certification had been met and granted the motion. After noting that the plaintiffs had not provided a consistent definition of the proposed class during the proceedings, the court ordered certification of a class consisting of "Connecticut licensed auto body repair shops, or licensed individuals, that have performed physical auto body repairs paid for directly or indirectly, partially or in full, by [The] Hartford as a result of automobile insurance policies issued by [The] Hartford." Thereafter, the trial court denied The Hartford's motion for reconsideration or reargument. This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review and the legal principles that govern class certification orders. "A trial court must undertake a rigorous analysis to determine whether the plaintiffs have borne the burden of demonstrating that the class certification requirements of Practice Book §§ 9-77 and 9-88 have been met. ... A trial court nonetheless has broad discretion in determining whether a suit should proceed as a class action. ... As long as the trial court has applied the proper legal standards in deciding whether to certify a class, its decision may ... be overturned [only] if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. ...
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309, 320-23, 880 A.2d 106 (2005).
In the present case, The Hartford concedes that the plaintiffs satisfied the first four prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequate representation but claims that the trial court incorrectly determined that they satisfied the requirement of predominance. We therefore turn to the legal principles that guide our analysis of this issue.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Town of Hebron
...precise amount of the loss is not known." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208, 218, 947 A.2d 320 (2008) ; see also Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 613, 440 A.2d 810 (1981) (" ‘Loss' has b......
-
Cenatiempo v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...must allege that the defendant's acts occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce.12 See Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 287 Conn. 208, 217, 947 A.2d 320 (2008). On the record before us, this requirement undoubtedly has been met. It is well settled that CUTPA applies to......
-
Nwachukwu v. Liberty Bank
...actual damages. The Supreme Court of Connecticut looked to these provisions when it defined, in Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. , 287 Conn. 208, 947 A.2d 320 (Conn. 2008), the requisite elements of a viable CUTPA claim:To prevail on a CUTPA claim, the plaintiffs must ......
-
Geiger v. C&G of Groton, Inc., 3:19-cv-502 (VAB)
...Health System, Inc. , 149 Conn. App. 502, 509, 88 A.3d 1280 (Conn. App. 2014) (quoting Artie's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. , 287 Conn. 208, 217-18, 947 A.2d 320 (Conn. 2008) ). An ascertainable loss is "capable of being discovered, observed or established[,]" but only requires......
-
Unresolved Issues Under the Unfair Trade Practices Act
...Lobeijko Priester, A New Era for Class Actions in Connecticut: Collins and its Aftermath, 17 CoNN. Lawyer No. 2, p. 10 (2006). 307. 287 Conn. 208, 947 A.2d 320 (2008) 308.Id. at 225-35, 947 A.2d at 333-39. 309.Id. at 225, 947 A.2d at 334. 310.Id. at 230, 947 A.2d at 336. 311.Id. at 229, 947......