“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A car accident victim tried to bring a class action against her insurance company for systematically undervaluing the amount that should be paid when a car is totaled. A district court certified the proposed class and the insurance company appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
What happened in this case?
Jessica Clippinger, a resident of Tennessee, got into a car accident that destroyed her minivan. She filed a claim with her insurer, State Farm, which paid her what it asserted was an accurate actual cash value (acv) of the vehicle. After further research and consultation, however, Clippinger concluded that State Farm had improperly reduced the acv through what it called the “typical negotiation adjustment” (TNA), and filed suit.
State Farm then invoked the insurance policy’s appraisal process, which required Clippinger to hire an appraiser. The process resulted in a higher acv than State Farm paid and the insurer paid the difference. Clippinger continued her suit, largely because of the appraisal and related fees she had to pay, and sought certification of a class of Tennessee drivers insured by State Farm.
The case went to the Sixth Circuit, and a three-judge panel affirmed. The full court then decided to reconsider the case. Trump judge Eric Murphy wrote a 9-7 opinion that reversed the lower court decision certifying a class action against State Farm, stopping the effort to obtain relief on behalf of multiple policy holders, in Clippinger v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, who was nominated by President George W Bush, dissented in an opinion for the remaining Sixth Circuit judges.
What was the rationale of Trump judge Murphy and the other Trump and George W Bush judges?
Judge Eric Murphy wrote a 10-7 opinion in favor of State Farm, joined by Trump judges Amul Thapar, John Bush, Joan Larsen, John Nalbandian, Chad Readler, and Whitney Hermandorfer, as well as George W Bush nominees Richard Griffin, Jeff Sutton, and Raymond Kethledge. He maintained that a class action was not appropriate concerning the estimated 90,000 vehicles in the class, since a “jury would have to consider unique evidence about each vehicle’s value,” which would “predominate” over other issues, to determine whether State Farm had underpaid each owner. This made it improper, Murphy concluded, to decide the case as a class action.
Why did Judge Gibbons and six others dissent?
Judge Gibbons strongly maintained that the full court should not have reversed the class action holding, joined by Clinton judges Karen Nelson Moore and Eric Clay plus Biden judges Stephanie Davis, Andre Mathis, Rachel Bloomekatz, and Kevin Ritz. She explained that the case raises “common question of liability” that “predominate” over any individualized damages claims: whether State Farm violated its contract and Tennessee law by using the TNA method that “uniformly and artificially” results in reducing car owners’ valuation below actual acv. The majority’s decision, she went on, “conflicts with circuit precedent” on valuation, both in the Sixth Circuit and elsewhere. In addition, Judge Gibbons concluded, the majority’s ruling could prevent class certifications in “even the most outrageous cases,” such as if an insurer calculated acv by “using orangutans to pick valuations” or by “throwing darts at randomly placed valuations on a dartboard.”
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Judge Murphy and the other Trump judges on the Sixth Circuit clearly harms Jesssica Clippinger and the 90,000 other Tennessee motorists who may seek to recover damages from their insurance company when vehicles are totaled. It also harms consumers and accountability in other cases where people seek class action relief, particualry in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and Michigan. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench