Judge must explain class action certification

CHARLESTON – Jackson Circuit Judge David Nibert must explain why he certified a class action of car crash victims against Erie Insurance, the Supreme Court of Appeals says.

Finding Nibert "did not conduct the thorough class action analysis contemplated by our prior opinions," the Justices directed him to prepare a new order in a June 14 ruling.

They wrote that it "should be detailed and specific in showing the rule basis for the certification and the relevant facts supporting the legal conclusions."

They wrote that conclusory summations aren't sufficient to confer class status.

Plaintiffs Tamara and Richard Hardman claim Erie should have paid the limit of the family policy on the death of daughter Emily in 2006.

Erie would apply a $20,000 limit in their coverage for under insured motorists.

The Hardmans had rejected a form offering to change the under insured coverage in 2003, but they told Nibert the form didn't constitute a reasonable offer.

Upon learning that others had rejected the form, they moved to certify a class action.

Nibert granted it last November, finding they could represent all injured persons with under insured coverage who didn't receive benefits at least equal to liability limits.

He set the class period to start in 1998.

Erie sought a writ of prohibition at the Supreme Court of Appeals, and the Justices granted it.

They wrote that they previously recognized the availability of extraordinary relief in similar matters.

They quoted a decision from 1982 that, "Writs of prohibition offer a procedure preferable to an appeal for challenging an improvident award of class standing."