Lubin v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Under former article 21.21, �17 of the insurance code, the Department of Insurance may ask the attorney general to institute a class-action suit to recover from an insurer damages for injuries done to the insurance-buying public. In one issue, the appellate court concluded that the four prerequisites to class certification (numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy) were satisfied. Austin Court of Appeals, No. 03-03-00374-CV, 11-062009

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

ON REMAND

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the class action filed by the attorney general in this case was properly certified. Under former article 21.21, section 17 of the insurance code, the Department of Insurance (the “Department”) may ask the attorney general to institute a class-action lawsuit to recover from an insurer damages for injuries done to the insurance-buying public. See former Tex. Ins. Code art. 21.21, § 17.*fn1 The district court concluded that the class could be certified because all of the statutory prerequisites for certification listed in the former provisions of the insurance code had been satisfied. On appeal, we originally concluded that the requirements had not been complied with because, among other reasons, there were no class representatives participating in the class action. Accordingly, we reversed the district court’s certification order. Lubin v. Farmers Group, Inc., 157 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, pet. granted) (“Lubin I”). The case was appealed, and the supreme court determined that it was not necessary to recruit one or more class representatives in class actions pursued by the attorney general at the request of the Department. After reaching that conclusion, the supreme court remanded the case back to this Court so that we could address whether, in light of the supreme court’s determination, the requirements for class certification had been met and to consider the parties’ other issues that were not addressed in our first opinion. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Lubin, 222 S.W.3d 417, 427-28 (Tex. 2007) (“Lubin II”). On remand, we will affirm the order of the district court.

Lubin v. Farmers Group, Inc.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal