Developments in Law, Factual Discovery Lead Federal Judge to Decertify Class Action

20 December 2012 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog

In Campbell v. First American, a federal judge in Maine has issued a ruling decertifying a class action involving claims that First American Title Insurance Co. overcharged refinance customers for their title insurance.

As members of the financial services industry may be all too aware, class certification is a critical point in litigation. A decision to grant class certification places great pressure on the defendant to settle — often without regard for the actual merits of the case. On the other hand, a certification denial can be the “death knell” of the case because the claim of the named plaintiff alone may be too small to justify the expense of going forward. In general, a court will certify a class if it is persuaded that many related individual claims can be decided together, with a key element being the predominance of “common” issues. Class treatment is generally inappropriate where resolution of the claims would require individualized review.

In the Campbell case, Judge George Z. Singal originally had certified a class of homeowners that included all persons who had refinanced a prior mortgage on residential property in Maine that was issued within two years of the refinancing and who had purchased title insurance from First American and paid more than the statutorily approved refinance rate. Two years later, however, Judge Singal was willing to re-examine — and reverse — that ruling. He explained that courts remain free to revisit class certification order at any time prior to final judgment. Citing stricter class certification standards in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2011 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decision, as well as developments in the factual record, Judge Singal found that there was no longer sufficient commonality to justify class certification.

The court observed that the Dukes decision has transformed the class certification commonality standard from a “low bar” to “a far more searching inquiry.” Under Dukes, class certification requires not just a common question, but also common answers. Moreover, a defendant retains a right to litigate defenses to individual claims.

In Campbell, it became clear to the court that there was no common cause for the alleged title insurance overcharge, but rather that “each class member presents unique facts as to what was presented in connection with their purchase of the title insurance and what steps were taken to ascertain whether they qualified for First American’s published refinance rate.” First American also had different defenses as to why individual class members had not received this lower rate. Thus, “neither liability nor damages can be established on a class wide basis,” the court found.

The record supported this analysis. At the time of the initial class certification, First American largely relied on declarations that it submitted to the court. However, the court was under the impression that if a borrower had previously received a title policy from First American, then it was entitled to a re-issue rate and that the failure to receive this rate could be attributed in some common way to First American’s failure to ascertain or assume the existence of the prior policy. Two years later, when First American moved to decertify, the parties had conducted significant additional discovery, which revealed that the plaintiffs’ claims could not be resolved without reviewing each of their individual transactions. First American had conducted a detailed review of 230 title policies (and their underlying files) identified by the plaintiffs as overcharges. The review showed that about one-third involved no overcharge at all.  Some plaintiffs had, in fact, received the refinance rate. For various reasons, others were ineligible. In yet other instances, the file contained insufficient information to determine whether the homeowner was entitled to the refinance rate.  

The case is Campbell v. First American Title Insurance Co., No. 2:08-cv-003119-GZS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. As a practical matter, a decertification order may have a particularly deterrent effect on class counsel who risk investing massive resources pursuing a case post-certification only to have the judge change his or her mind down the road. Judge Singal’s ruling joins a number of recent decisions reflecting a legal climate where it may be increasingly difficult to secure class certification. Of note is a decision earlier this year in Howland v. First American Title Insurance Co., 672 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2012), in which the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial class certification in a RESPA case.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ