CIT Communication Finance Corporation v. McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/30/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1060771 CIT Communication F i n a n c e C o r p o r a t i o n v. McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C. Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-03-2072) Court PER C U R I A M . This i s the third this Court. June 24, 2005), time these p a r t i e s have S e e E x p a r t e C I T Commc'n F i n . C o r p . 926 S o . 2 d 3 8 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) p a r t e C I T Commc'n F i n . C o r p . , Communication Finance been before (No. 1 0 4 0 5 2 9 , (table), and Ex 897 S o . 2 d 2 9 6 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . Corporation ("CIT") now a p p e a l s CIT the 1060771 Mobile Circuit 23(b)(3), A l a . R. e n t i t i e s who office date trial charges a n d who various certification entities across o f McFadden, into a standard to was lease agreement on to such and to June We leases, 11, 2003, affirm the products to History and related I n A u g u s t 1998, the law ("McFadden"), entered with CIT, pursuant e q u i p m e n t f o r 60 m o n t h s l e a s e agreement the telephone McFadden to required McFadden equipment but provide proof insurance t o CIT, CIT c o u l d c h o o s e t o o b t a i n i n s u r a n c e the l e a s e agreement are required to provide r e l a t e d to the Equipment 2 which at the r a t e that, e q u i p m e n t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , failed to provided "You insurance Rule order. the country. The insurance i f to of persons filed. Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C. p e r month. maintain case equipment leased telephone of $272.22 class prior and P r o c e d u r a l office firm pursuant i n c u r r e d , pursuant in this leases McFadden a nationwide w i t h i n s i x years Facts CIT certifying, i n t o a g r e e m e n t s w i t h CIT f o r t h e l e a s e o f the complaint court's order C i v . P., entered equipment insurance the Court's and also of on t h e provided: maintain 1060771 "6. INSURANCE. You w i l l p r o v i d e and m a i n t a i n a t y o u r e x p e n s e (a) p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e a g a i n s t t h e l o s s , t h e f t , o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f , o r damage t o , t h e Equipment f o r i t s f u l l r e p l a c e m e n t v a l u e , naming us a s l o s s p a y e e , a n d (b) p u b l i c l i a b i l i t y a n d t h i r d p a r t y p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e , n a m i n g us as an a d d i t i o n a l insured. You w i l l g i v e us c e r t i f i c a t e s o r o t h e r evidence o f s u c h i n s u r a n c e when r e q u e s t e d . Such insurance will be i n a form, amount and w i t h c o m p a n i e s a c c e p t a b l e t o u s , a n d w i l l p r o v i d e t h a t we will be given 30 days advance notice o f any c a n c e l l a t i o n or m a t e r i a l change o f such i n s u r a n c e . If y o u do not give us evidence of insurance a c c e p t a b l e t o u s , we h a v e t h e r i g h t , b u t n o t t h e obligation, to obtain insurance covering our interest i n the Equipment f o r the term of t h i s L e a s e , i n c l u d i n g any r e n e w a l s o r e x t e n s i o n s , f r o m an i n s u r e r o f o u r c h o i c e , i n c l u d i n g an i n s u r e r t h a t i s our a f f i l i a t e . We may a d d t h e c o s t s o f a c q u i r i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g s u c h i n s u r a n c e and o u r f e e s f o r o u r s e r v i c e s i n p l a c i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g such insurance (collectively, 'Insurance Charge') t o t h e amounts due f r o m y o u u n d e r t h i s L e a s e . You w i l l p a y t h e Insurance Charge i n equal i n s t a l l m e n t s a l l o c a t e d t o the remaining Lease Payments. I f we purchase i n s u r a n c e , you w i l l cooperate w i t h our insurance agent w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e placement o f i n s u r a n c e and the p r o c e s s i n g of c l a i m s . Nothing i n this Lease w i l l c r e a t e an i n s u r a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a n y t y p e between us and any o t h e r p e r s o n . You a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t we a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o s e c u r e o r m a i n t a i n a n y i n s u r a n c e , a n d we w i l l n o t be l i a b l e t o y o u i f we t e r m i n a t e a n y i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e t h a t we arrange. I f we r e p l a c e o r r e n e w a n y i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e , we are not o b l i g a t e d t o p r o v i d e replacement or renewal c o v e r a g e u n d e r t h e same t e r m s , costs, l i m i t s , or c o n d i t i o n s as t h e p r e v i o u s coverage." 3 1060771 (Emphasis of-law by a d d e d . ) The l e a s e a g r e e m e n t a l s o c o n t a i n e d clause providing that t h e laws of the State a choice- t h e a g r e e m e n t was t o b e o f New governed Jersey. S h o r t l y a f t e r e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e l e a s e agreement w i t h CIT, McFadden which received stated, a letter i n pertinent from CIT d a t e d August 13, 1998, part: " I n s i d e t h e e n c l o s e d ' I n f o p a c k ' you w i l l f i n d an i n f o r m a t i o n card t i t l e d ' I n s u r i n g Leased Equipment,' w h i c h e x p l a i n s AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n ' s Property Insurance Program. Under t h i s program, t h e c o s t o f i n s u r i n g t h e l e a s e d equipment i s i n c l u d e d as an additional charge i n each o f your monthly lease invoices. However, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f your l e a s e agreement, y o u may o b t a i n a n d p r o v i d e p r o o f t o u s o f y o u r own p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e , n a m i n g AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n a s l o s s p a y e e d u r i n g the term o f your l e a s e " [ 1 ] The "Infopack" contained "Points To Contract: the following provisions: Remember About Your AT&T Leasing " I n s u r a n c e : The c u s t o m e r (lessee) i s required to p r o v i d e and m a i n t a i n insurance coverage a g a i n s t t h e loss, theft, damage or destruction of leased equipment f o r i t s f u l l replacement value, naming AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n ( l e s s o r ) a s l o s s p a y e e . The customer i s a l s o r e q u i r e d t o have g e n e r a l l i a b i l i t y insurance. 1 CIT was f o r m e r l y known a s AT&T C r e d i t 4 Corporation. 1060771 "Insuring Leased Equipment[:] "One o f t h e t e r m s o f t h e AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n Lease Agreement requires that you p r o v i d e and m a i n t a i n i n s u r a n c e a g a i n s t t h e l o s s , t h e f t , damage, and d e s t r u c t i o n o f the leased equipment. Such c o v e r a g e must be f o r t h e f u l l r e p l a c e m e n t v a l u e a n d name AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n a s a l o s s p a y e e . "We h a v e a c q u i r e d o u r own p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y through our leased equipment insurance manager, Lease Insurance Agency Services Corporation, to p r o t e c t t h e l e a s e d equipment. Our p r o p e r t y coverage will be used to satisfy the lease coverage r e q u i r e m e n t i f y o u do n o t p r o v i d e p r o o f o f y o u r own p r o p e r t y insurance w i t h i n the time r e q u i r e d . " The types "Infopack" also contained of losses covered information by t h e C I T - p r o v i d e d as c o v e r a g e f e a t u r e s a n d t h e m o n t h l y c h a r g e s McFadden l a t e r 4, 1 9 9 8 , w h i c h received a letter relating to the i n s u r a n c e , as w e l l f o r the coverage. from CIT d a t e d September stated, i n pertinent part: "As y o u know, one o f t h e t e r m s of our Lease Agreement requires that you m a i n t a i n insurance a g a i n s t l o s s , damage, d e s t r u c t i o n , a n d t h e f t f o r t h e replacement v a l u e o f t h e l e a s e d equipment, naming AT&T C r e d i t C o r p o r a t i o n a s ' l o s s p a y e e . ' You c a n satisfy this requirement by o b t a i n i n g your own i n s u r a n c e o r by t a k i n g advantage o f t h e c o v e r a g e w h i c h AT&T C r e d i t h a s a r r a n g e d f o r t h e equipment u n d e r i t s own i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . You c a n e x e r c i s e e i t h e r of the options d e s c r i b e d below. "1. Insure Equipment Under AT&T Credit's Property Insurance P o l i c y . Since many c u s t o m e r s p r e f e r n o t t o o b t a i n t h e i r own c o v e r a g e on t h e l e a s e d e q u i p m e n t , AT&T 5 1060771 C r e d i t h a s p r o c u r e d i t s own c o v e r a g e w h i c h satisfies the property insurance requirement contained i n your lease Unless you d e c i d e to obtain your own policy, t h e equipment i s automatically c o v e r e d u n d e r AT&T C r e d i t ' s p o l i c y a s o f the date you accept t h e equipment.... I f you e l e c t t h i s o p t i o n b y n o t a c q u i r i n g y o u r own insurance policy, w e ' l l add $15.15, which i n c l u d e s t h e i n s u r a n c e premium and other related charges, t o each o f your monthly lease i n v o i c e s . " 2 . U s e Y o u r Own I n s u r a n c e Carrier. If you wish t o use your own property i n s u r a n c e on t h e l e a s e d e q u i p m e n t , s i m p l y have your agent o r b r o k e r c a l l our l e a s e d equipment insurance manager, Lease Insurance Agency S e r v i c e s C o r p o r a t i o n I f your agent o r b r o k e r does n o t c o n f i r m your p r o p e r t y i n s u r a n c e c o v e r a g e on t h e e q u i p m e n t w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s l e t t e r , t h e e q u i p m e n t w i l l be i n s u r e d under AT&T Credit's property insurance policy." McFadden acquired never i t s own monthly charge McFadden paid term insurance of $15.15 the monthly CIT with proof and, t h e r e f o r e , f o r the charge that was CIT-placed without i t had billed a insurance. objection for the of the lease. The consisted and provided CIT-placed insurance, o f two i n s u r a n c e according programs: (2) t h e A m e r i c a n B a n k e r s p r o g r a m . 6 to McFadden, (1) t h e P r e m i e r I n November program 1988, CIT 1060771 had entered Services into an agreement ("Premier") with whereby Premier 2 t h e C I T - p l a c e d i n s u r a n c e p r o g r a m . As authority t o p l a c e and CIT equipment, customers, and the CIT and services Also, to a p p o i n t e d CIT services, such information of the insurance the an states as the Premier Corporation. states that on and for leased CIT customers. Premier collecting, from charged t o CIT transmitting billing, the o r damage t o Premier between that, in addition the CIT Premier, fee charged of the the by and and CIT, certain of customer remitting by to was Premier the 7 as billed charge for lender, McFadden subcontract with Lease an for services i t program. administration f o r m e r l y known monthly a third-party insurance pursuant m a j o r i t y of to the customer a f i n a n c e charge manager was coverage of charges. premium, that returned 2 collecting administration performed manager as i t s s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o p e r f o r m l e a s e d equipment, insurance and as Loan insurance charges passed agreement t o P r e m i e r and McFadden for the states t h a t was and manager, P r e m i e r had to c o l l e c t McFadden a fee f o r these Premier the to a d m i n i s t e r r e p o r t s of l o s s equipment. pursuant Lease became to c a n c e l Premier to b i l l CIT Premier fee to Insurance CIT, CIT, so Services 1060771 that CIT received $4.00 per month a d m i n i s t r a t i o n f e e as a " s u b c o n t r a c t only 12.5 that cents the $4.00 correlation under to of the i t s subcontract McFadden program. with was Company f e e " and P r e m i e r ("National"). charged costs CIT by of CIT had by to Union entered into returned to National Premier November reinsurance Company ( " E I C " ) , a entire to McFadden, majority of the wholly risk of EIC under risk then the program. In that Insurance according the Premier under a a l l e g e d l y p a s s i n g the However, the Fire owned s u b s i d i a r y o f CIT, EIC. direct i t s duties customers National National from Insurance to retained no performing agreement w i t h Equipment loss the McFadden a l l e g e s profited provided underwritten of Premier. that insurance program fee actual contends The lease administration fee. subcontract CIT's per American Bankers"), insurance Bankers by 1998, CIT Insurance which entered Company American into of Bankers an agreement Florida agreed coverage f o r CIT's l e a s e d equipment. 3 ("American to A s an e x i s t i n g c u s t o m e r , American Bankers program. McFadden 8 was provide When A m e r i c a n B a n k e r s t o o k o v e r C I T ' s i n s u r a n c e p r o g r a m , t h e r e was 3 with brought no change into the 1060771 in the amount Initially, were were the administration combined invoice later customers into one charged f e e and charge separately American from administration same a m o u n t . the premium" fee while and to to impossible McFadden out to premium customer's alleges remit CIT that CIT the fee a $6.00 the insurance premium by t h e administration d u t i e s under the American Bankers program. w o u l d be a "break f e e h a d no d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n t o C I T ' s c o s t s t o M c F a d d e n , CIT has insurance. t o M c F a d d e n , t h e $6.00 According reducing on McFadden Bankers the the insurance designated as t h e " I n s u r a n c e C h a r g e . " directed for acknowledged to of performing i t s Further, according that the administration fee justify. contends that, under the American Bankers program, American Bankers t r a n s f e r r e d the r i s k that i t insured t o H i g h l a n d s I n s u r a n c e Company ( " H i g h l a n d s " ) , a w h o l l y subsidiary of CIT. Then, according returned the majority of the r i s k retained most McFadden, representative o f t h e premium p a i d in i t s to McFadden, Highlands to American under individual of a putative C I T h a d i m p o s e d on i t a n d t h e p u t a t i v e Bankers, but the p o l i c y . capacity c l a s s , sued 9 owned and as the CIT, alleging that class insurance charges 1060771 that exceeded the associated McFadden with customary costs procuring alleged that and the of excessive administering for excessive; unreasonable the that fees f e e s was t h a t CIT's a c t i o n s and v i o l a t e d the explained the terms of the latter covenant claim i n more of good were placement profits; not l e a s e . McFadden c o n s t i t u t e d a breach of the implied insurance. f o r the excessive the costs CIT's p r a c t i c e t h a t the p r a c t i c e of charging by the insurance increased authorized intended the generate or was and to in insurance and insurance charges u n r e a s o n a b l e , u n n e c e s s a r y , and of charging of lease faith. 4 and disclosed asserted agreement McFadden detail: "As a party granted the contractual right to p u r c h a s e i n s u r a n c e on t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y , t h e r i g h t c a r r i e d w i t h i t the o b l i g a t i o n of good f a i t h and fair dealing, and because [CIT] made certain a f f i r m a t i v e statements promoting the s a l e of the i n s u r a n c e , [ C I T ] was o b l i g a t e d t o s t a t e a l l m a t e r i a l f a c t s , i n c l u d i n g the f a c t s r e l a t e d to the p r i c i n g of insurance and the hidden p r o f i t s t a k e n by [CIT] t h r o u g h i t s v a r i o u s r e i n s u r a n c e a g r e e m e n t s and other c o n t r a c t u a l agreements." CIT answered the m a t e r i a l a v e r m e n t s and including waiver, complaint, generally denying the asserting c e r t a i n a f f i r m a t i v e defenses, estoppel, ratification, acquiescence, and McFadden initially asserted a claim of fraudulent s u p p r e s s i o n but e v e n t u a l l y abandoned i t s e f f o r t s to c e r t i f y a c l a s s as t o t h a t c l a i m . 4 10 1060771 v o l u n t a r y payment. McFadden's failed The class to class and by moved entities [CIT], who and the court argued, relief motion to dismiss McFadden could to to be dismiss respond McFadden Premier through the CIT had granted. the to class McFadden's moved t h e trial after the court CIT filed to years also and motion court trial opposition six sought (2) for those a r e s o l u t i o n of a class "persons serviced the filing CIT- of certification this of two placed through insurance with summary any the placed and hearing on McFadden CIT's motion issue. motion. evidentiary certification. 11 judgment. class-certification McFadden's brief [ f o r the program. to continue granted to c l a s s of charges of pursuant agreement a lease insurance American Bankers a certify, customers with insurance program, filed to a nationwide have had within (1) t h o s e court C i v . P., incurred insurance] subclasses: trial have or who complaint." until i t amended i t s a n s w e r 2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. the CIT's trial allegations. placed The denied then McFadden Rule because, c l a i m upon w h i c h court CIT a l s o moved t h e claims state a trial claims. CIT Also, submission pursuant to § in 6-5- 1060771 641(d), Ala. Code 1975, i t requested A f t e r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , f i n d i n g t h a t McFadden had for class certification P., and proper that certified the by during the claim that American fee CIT manner insurance breached the in fees breached the programs. CIT "'This to trial Ala. by program Jersey Civ. trial treatment: by the Premier the lease lease agreement charging law; established of that and was court (1) the by breached the R. McFadden The authorized o f New appeals court's class order requirements 23(a), P. an and (3) i m p l i e d covenant of good f a i t h C o u r t a p p l i e s an a Civ. hearing. entered requested for Bankers i t Rule R. not in violation which court l e a s e agreement d u r i n g Standard review as Ala. evidentiary the t h r e s h o l d to (2) t h e c l a i m t h a t C I T unreasonable the pursuant 23(b)(3), retaining agreement; satisfied following claims c l a i m t h a t CIT program the t r i a l class certification under Rule an administered an the in the certification. Review abuse-of-discretion class-certification [ 5 ] standard order, but of we T h i s C o u r t now p h r a s e s t h e q u e s t i o n i n t e r m s o f w h e t h e r a t r i a l court "exceeded" i t s d i s c r e t i o n , r a t h e r than whether the trial court "abused" i t s d i s c r e t i o n . The standard of review r e m a i n s t h e same. See C l a s s r o o m d i r e c t . c o m , LLC v. D r a p h i x , LLC, 992 So. 2d 6 9 2 , 701 n.1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ; K y s e r v. H a r r i s o n , 90 8 So. 2d 914 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e Family D o l l a r S t o r e s o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 906 So. 2d 8 92 , 8 99 (Ala. 2005). 5 12 1060771 will review a p p l i e d the certify 1088, v. novo the Childers-Sims, seeking 850 Life So. 2d class C o r p . v. Smart 1245, has the in reaching Ins. (quoting certification to whether standard Alfa ( A l a . 2003) entitled question correct legal a class.'" 1094 party is de the Hughes, certification. § 861 So. Photocopy (Ala. burden court i t s decision Prof'l 1248 trial 6-5-641(e), 2d Corp. 2002)). of p r o v i n g to The that i t Ala. Code 1975. "[A]n abuse of d i s c r e t i o n in certifying a class a c t i o n may be p r e d i c a t e d u p o n a s h o w i n g b y t h e p a r t y seeking to have the c l a s s - c e r t i f i c a t i o n order set aside that 'the party seeking class action c e r t i f i c a t i o n f a i l e d to c a r r y the burden of producing s u f f i c i e n t evidence to s a t i s f y the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 23.'" Compass Bank v. Snow, 823 So. Ex Tree Corp., parte Green Fin. 2d 667, 672 ( A l a . 2001) 684 So. 2d 1302, (quoting 1307 (Ala. 1996)). Issues CIT First, raises CIT required three argues rigorous Second, CIT argues address McFadden's main that the analysis that the standing issues trial in court before trial as 13 a its did appellate not certifying court erred threshold brief. perform the by issue the class. failing to to class 1060771 certification. in Third, CIT argues f i n d i n g t h a t McFadden had 23(b)(3), Ala. R. that satisfied Civ. P., the trial court the R u l e 23(a) requirements erred and Rule for class certification. Analysis I. CIT first order is trial court before 1975 due argues to be ("When the analysis, i f conduct be certified. court the R. Civ. P. the whether shall party [ h a s ] p r o v e d i t s ... Ala. trial according rigorous See ... This certification to analysis CIT, 6-5-641(e), A l a . requested a class requesting employing a class is has Code to certification under stated: " ' [ C ] l a s s a c t i o n s may n o t be a p p r o v e d l i g h t l y and ... t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the p r e r e q u i s i t e s o f R u l e 23 h a v e b e e n s a t i s f i e d r e q u i r e s a " r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s . " ' Ex p a r t e C i t i c o r p A c c e p t a n c e Co., 715 So. 2d 199, 203 ( A l a . 1 997); see a l s o § 6-5-641, A l a . Code 1975. The p l a i n t i f f m u s t o f f e r s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f t h e R u l e 23 c r i t e r i a ; t h i s e v i d e n c e m u s t be referenced i n the trial court's order before class c e r t i f i c a t i o n i s proper." 14 be rigorous to c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n Court the required § d e t e r m i n e , by entitlement 23."). court's because, to deciding certified, the reversed failed a c l a s s may that 1060771 Bill Heard Chevrolet Co. v. Thomas, 819 So. 2d 34, 40 (Ala. 2001). In B i l l H e a r d , we class-certification not conducted the decision, we d i r e c t e d the order, holding required rigorous noted trial court that the to vacate i t s trial analysis. As court had p a r t of that that "the nine-page order c o n d i t i o n a l l y g r a n t i n g class c e r t i f i c a t i o n was d r a f t e d , n o t b y t h e t r i a l j u d g e , b u t by c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s . W h i l e t h i s f a c t , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , does not compel the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not conduct a r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s of the evidence presented in support of class c e r t i f i c a t i o n , we s t r o n g l y d i s c o u r a g e t h i s p r a c t i c e i n the context of c l a s s - c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r d e r s . We n o t e t h a t § 6 - 5 - 6 4 1 ( e ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] and R u l e 2 3 , A l a . R. C i v . P., i m p o s e u p o n t h e t r i a l j u d g e t h e d u t y t o c o n d u c t a r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s , a n d we hold t h a t t h i s duty i s n o n d e l e g a b l e , even i n the case of a conditional certification." Bill Heard, CIT 819 argues court's a adopted drafted that, rigorous certification, Court 2d at 41. like the class-certification represent and So. stated by in Bill by of i t was the in Bill order analysis because verbatim order in the drafted trial Heard, the p l a i n t i f f ' s counsel 15 this by fact the case requirements trial does for McFadden's court. i s not Heard, However, not class counsel as this that the order was enough, by itself, to 1060771 demonstrate t h a t the trial analysis. Although failure d r a f t i t s own to b a s e d on o t h e r l a c k o f any we court noted factors. in proposed order." order "fail[ed] being to certified order, for opposition the So. at identify forth 23." 819 case, the however, this evidentiary hearing, So. and 2d evidence in opposition entered by our of decision reiterate draft each in that the discourage[d]," Bill the and the trial the trial was class Heard practice is of So. 2d at 16 the claims to d i s c u s s in criteria set conducted an opportunity to i t s arguments and court given the certification. court Rule [the] that four fail[ed] their in noted the "the 41. 23 Further, contains a requirements. the detailed Therefore, d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . Although having class-certification 819 to present of was emphasized also at the h e a r i n g , to the of We court's case contained elements at CIT b o t h i n w r i t i n g and discussion i n that we rigorous trial e l e m e n t s b e a r upon the present, order 41. for c l a s s treatment those In the holding assertions 2d a c o g e n t m a n n e r how i n Rule our Heard [the defendants] to 819 in B i l l to conduct a More s p e c i f i c a l l y , opportunity evidence failed 41, counsel order we for is decline to a we party "strongly order the 1060771 vacation this of the t r i a l court's class-certification order on ground. II. CIT next certification to argues order CIT, McFadden does asserts. have demonstrate trial court's because, classaccording n o t have s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e c l a i m s i t because, CIT a r g u e s t h a t McFadden does n o t CIT contends, McFadden any b r e a c h o f i t s l e a s e agreement o f t h e d u t y o f good This the i s due t o be r e v e r s e d More s p e c i f i c a l l y , standing breach that cannot w i t h CIT o r any faith. Court r e c e n t l y s t a t e d : "'When a p a r t y w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g p u r p o r t s t o commence a n a c t i o n , t h e t r i a l court acquires no subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n . ' S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 5 , 1028 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . ... " ' [ S ] t a n d i n g t u r n s on w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y has s u f f e r e d an a c t u a l i n j u r y a n d w h e t h e r t h e i n j u r y i s to a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t . ' C a r e y v . H o w a r d , 950 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 5 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . ... [ A ] n ' a c t u a l o r imminent, particularized, concrete, and p a l p a b l e i n j u r y ... i s r e q u i r e d f o r a s h o w i n g o f s t a n d i n g . ' Town o f C e d a r B l u f f v . C i t i z e n s C a r i n g f o r C h i l d r e n , 904 So. 2d 1 2 5 3 , 1261 ( A l a . 2004) (See, J . , concurring specially)." R i l e y v . P a t e , 3 S o . 3 d 8 3 5 , 838 a named p l a i n t i f f ( A l a . 2008). Further, "'[i]f has n o t been i n j u r e d by t h e wrong a l l e g e d i n 17 1060771 the complaint, then no case or controversy t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s no s t a n d i n g or on b e h a l f of a c l a s s . ' " of Human R e s . , 843 So. parte Care, 1 64 , P r u d e n t i a l I n s . Co. (Ala. t o sue e i t h e r Kid's 2d i s presented 167 on h i s own and behalf I n c . v. Alabama Dep't ( A l a . 2002 ) ( q u o t i n g of America, 721 So. 2d 1135, Ex 1137 1998)). McFadden has a l l e g e d t h a t CIT's methods of assessing the charged f o r CIT-placed t h e two p r o g r a m s fees resulted i n i t s payment insurance under of unreasonable and excessive t h a t were not p e r m i t t e d by i t s l e a s e agreement. I t a l s o that CIT's behavior good f a i t h injuries, CIT, to i n charging the fees v i o l a t e d i m p l i e d i n the l e a s e agreement. which i t claims were argues the duty of McFadden's a l l e g e d caused by wrongs committed by are not s p e c u l a t i v e or h y p o t h e t i c a l , but appear, i n s t e a d , be " ' a c t u a l , Riley, ... p a r t i c u l a r i z e d , 3 S o . 3d a t 8 3 8 . Moreover, concrete, i t appears and p a l p a b l e . ' " that McFadden's i n j u r i e s w o u l d be r e d r e s s e d b y a d e c i s i o n i n M c F a d d e n ' s Therefore, claims, we and certification we hold that decline order McFadden has to reverse on t h i s ground. standing the t r i a l favor. to bring i t s court's class- 6 Much o f CIT's argument r e g a r d i n g McFadden's a l l e g e d l a c k s t a n d i n g r e l a t e s t o t h e u n d e r l y i n g m e r i t s o f McFadden's 6 of fees 18 1060771 III. CIT McFadden order not next argues has s t a n d i n g that, i f this to bring i s due t o be r e v e r s e d Court i t sclaims, determines the t r i a l court's b e c a u s e , CIT a r g u e s , McFadden s a t i s f i e d t h e R u l e 23(a) and (b)(3) that has requirements f o r class certification. A. Rule 23(a), Rule A l a . R. 23(a) Prerequisites C i v . P., provides: "(a) P r e r e q u i s i t e s t o a C l a s s A c t i o n . One o r m o r e m e m b e r s o f a c l a s s may sue o r be s u e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t i e s on b e h a l f o f a l l o n l y i f (1) t h e c l a s s i s so n u m e r o u s t h a t j o i n d e r o f a l l members is impracticable, (2) t h e r e a r e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w o r f a c t common t o t h e c l a s s , (3) t h e c l a i m s o r d e f e n s e s of the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t i e s are t y p i c a l of the claims or defenses of the c l a s s , and (4) t h e representative parties will fairly and a d e q u a t e l y protect the i n t e r e s t s of the c l a s s . " The four Rule 23(a) respectively as 'typicality,' a n d (4) ' a d e q u a c y . ' concern entire the (1) requirements " a r e commonly 'numerosity,' class, while (2) referred 'commonality,' to (3) ' N u m e r o s i t y and c o m m o n a l i t y typicality and c o n c e r n t h e n e x u s o f t h e named c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s adequacy with the claims. McFadden argues t h a t a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m e r i t s a t t h i s stage of the case i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t McFadden has s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g i t s c l a i m s , we do n o t a d d r e s s w h e t h e r , o r t o what e x t e n t , a m e r i t s - r e l a t e d i n q u i r y is allowed during the c l a s s - c e r t i f i c a t i o n process. 19 1060771 class 666 itself.'" C a s . Co. v . R u s s e l l , 798 S o . 2 d 6 6 4 , ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o t i n g W a r e h o u s e Home F u r n i s h i n g Inc. v. Whitson, CIT McFadden does elements 709 So. 2d 1 1 4 4 , 1148 not dispute satisfied Therefore, i. Atlanta we the t r i a l the numerosity limit our of commonality and (Ala. 1997)). court's and adequacy discussion Distribs., of Rule finding that requirements. 23(a) t o the typicality. Commonality "In examining certification 'Rule interpretation actions Rules for of C i v i l Procedure reads t o be p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y o f o u r own R u l e 1060438, February (quoting Adams 1995)). The U n i t e d has prerequisites 23 o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s , a n d we c o n s i d e r l a w on c l a s s Circuit several c o n t a i n e d i n R u l e 2 3 , we m u s t k e e p i n m i n d 23 o f t h e A l a b a m a same a s R u l e case the v. States 676 Court the federal f o r the So. 2d 12 65, of Appeals ( A l a . 2009) 12 68 ( A l a . f o r the said: "The t h r e s h o l d of 'commonality' i s not high. Aimed i n p a r t a t 'determining whether t h e r e i s a need f o r c o m b i n e d t r e a t m e n t and a b e n e f i t t o be derived therefrom,' In r e Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 506 F. Supp. 762, 787 (E.D.N.Y. 1 9 8 0 ) , m o d i f i e d , 100 F.R.D. 718 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 20 that 2 3 . ' " R y a n v . P a t t e r s o n , [Ms. 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ] _ _ _ S o . 3 d ___ , _ _ _ Robertson, class Fifth 1060771 mandamus d e n i e d s u b nom. I n r e D i a m o n d Shamrock C h e m i c a l s C o . , 725 F . 2 d 858 ( 2 d C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 65 U.S. 10 67 , 104 S. C t . 1 4 1 7 , 79 L. E d . 2 d 743 (1984), t h e r u l e r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e common q u e s t i o n s affect a l l or a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f t h e c l a s s members, S t e w a r t v . W i n t e r , 669 F . 2 d 3 2 8 , 335 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) . " Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., previously noted Inc., 782 F . 2 d 4 6 8 , 472 (5th C i r . 1986). As certified i n this the following claims opinion, for class the t r i a l treatment: court (1) t h e c l a i m t h a t CIT b r e a c h e d t h e l e a s e agreement d u r i n g t h e P r e m i e r program by retaining fees not authorized by the a g r e e m e n t ; (2) t h e c l a i m t h a t C I T b r e a c h e d t h e l e a s e during the American unreasonable claim the fee i n violation insurance i n which programs. based on claims CIT these by o f New J e r s e y CIT's i t established charging an l a w ; a n d (3) t h e and methods fees of administering under those that, claims, the t r i a l i n order these the claims i t s insurance programs. c a n be t r e a t e d on a c l a s s - w i d e argues administered We a g r e e w i t h M c F a d d e n t h a t programs and a s s e s s i n g the program agreement t h a t CIT b r e a c h e d t h e i m p l i e d c o v e n a n t o f good f a i t h i n manner are Bankers lease Therefore, basis. f o r McFadden to prevail on c o u r t would have t o t r e a t t h e language 21 1060771 of the lease ambiguous, the subjective used member agreement, The t h e same placed individualized CIT's faith. will have to look standard each of to t o d e t e r m i n e t h e meaning the lease Thus, there address agreement commonality with will be McFadden's that i s Moreover, each a monthly agreement we h o l d o f law and f a c t , " the agreement member the lease Consequently, certification. lease class by CIT. at class treatment inappropriate. language violated "common i s s u e s satisfied making evidence methods good court I f the language i s and McFadden does n o t argue o t h e r w i s e . and c h a r g e d insurance ambiguous. i n t e n t o f each p a r t y disagree. unambiguous, CIT as CIT argues, the t r i a l of t h e l e a s e We agreement class amount f o r no need f o r claims that and t h e duty o f McFadden Rule 23(a), prerequisite presented and, t h e r e f o r e , for class 7 CIT a l s o argues that the t r i a l court erred i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c o m m o n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t had been s a t i s f i e d , because t h e c o u r t f a i l e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h o s e c l a s s m e m b e r s who h a v e b e n e f i t e d from t h e C I T - p l a c e d i n s u r a n c e . C I T c i t e s , as an e x a m p l e , a c l a s s member t h a t i n c u r r e d a l o s s , f i l e d a c l a i m under the existing insurance program, and r e c e i v e d new equipment. CIT argues that t h e customer b e n e f i t e d from t h e insurance program, because i t l a t e r e x e r c i s e d i t s o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e equipment f o r a n o m i n a l f e e a t t h e end o f t h e lease. However, CIT's argument a g a i n o v e r l o o k s t h e e s s e n c e o f McFadden's claims, which i s that CIT's methods of a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e i n s u r a n c e programs and o f a s s e s s i n g t h e fees 7 22 1060771 i i . Typicality To establish typicality, the party seeking c e r t i f i c a t i o n must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t " t h e c l a i m s the representative defenses of the c l a s s . " 'typicality' strengths the parties Rule requirement typical 23(a), focuses Jenkins, McFadden's claims are not i t argues, there members chose and 782 to allow because members f e e l , bounds there the less F.2d at C i v . P. on the could of i s no however, proof agreement w i t h than argues of that on their that the class, reasons insurance "The why class coverage f o r the other class agreement. the issues t o be a d d r e s s e d i n v o l v e CIT's methods o f a d m i n i s t e r i n g assessing those be m y r i a d CIT t o o b t a i n cases CIT or relative theories behind 472. typical claims as McFadden does, t h a t t h e f e e s were o u t s i d e t h e of the lease Again, and of A l a . R. s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e l e g a l and r e m e d i a l because, or defenses of o f t h e named a n d u n n a m e d p l a i n t i f f s ' claims." them are class fees. CIT used e a c h c l a s s member, the i n this the insurance same case programs standard lease c h a r g e d e a c h c l a s s member a r e s u l t e d i n e x c e s s i v e o r u n r e a s o n a b l e c h a r g e s t o t h e members o f t h e c l a s s . W h e t h e r a n y member o f t h e c l a s s b e n e f i t e d f r o m b e i n g r e i m b u r s e d f o r a l o s s u n d e r an i n s u r a n c e program i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f McFadden's c l a i m s . 23 1060771 monthly f e e , and o t h e r w i s e without regard member. Under theories" administered to the individual these McFadden Rule 23(a). Rule Rule supra. of a and and those See J e n k i n s , satisfied argues Rule t h a t McFadden 23(b)(3), Therefore, we of 23(b)(3). Requirements failed t o meet the requirements A l a . R. C i v . P., f o r c l a s s 23(b) provides, remedial requirement the typicality 23(b)(3) class of the class We now t u r n t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e B. of the "legal u n d e r l y i n g McFadden's c l a i m s that CIT circumstances circumstances, m e m b e r s w o u l d b e t h e same. hold i t s insurance programs i n pertinent certification. part: "(b) C l a s s A c t i o n s M a i n t a i n a b l e . A n a c t i o n may be m a i n t a i n e d as a c l a s s a c t i o n i f t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e s o f s u b d i v i s i o n (a) a r e s a t i s f i e d , a n d i n a d d i t i o n : "(3) t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w or fact common t o t h e members of the class predominate over any q u e s t i o n s affecting only individual members, and t h a t a class action i s s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r a v a i l a b l e methods f o r t h e f a i r and e f f i c i e n t adjudication of the controversy. ... " The t r i a l court show that common case and that resolving a f o u n d t h a t M c F a d d e n h a d met i t s b u r d e n t o issues class the dispute. o f law and f a c t action was predominated the superior CIT has n o t a r g u e d t o t h i s 24 i nthe means Court of that 1060771 the trial court McFadden exceeded had Therefore, satisfied we requirement i t s discretion limit "that our the superiority discussion individual CIT Rule court class here, common t o t h e over any q u e s t i o n s have member to address to consider to determine thought that charge, a n d (2) why t h e c l a s s decision 23(b)(3) affecting as i t d i d r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f i n order will CIT's argument i n Reynolds McFadden's claims, the the individual (1) w h e t h e r t h e l e a s e agreement insurance. the Rule members." 23(a), that, trial each argues to that requirement. the questions of law or fact members o f t h e c l a s s p r e d o m i n a t e only i n finding limited intent the class the fees of member CIT c o u l d member a l l o w e d C I T t o p r o v i d e relies heavily M e t a l s Co. v . H i l l , on this Court's 825 S o . 2 d 100 ( A l a . 2002). In Reynolds claimed would to that orally they be p a i d another former had been employees promised t o t h e m when R e y n o l d s company. by a v i c e hall-type Metals, The promise that We vacated 25 severance Metals sold Metals the t r i a l Metals benefits the had a l l e g e d l y p r e s i d e n t of Reynolds meetings. of Reynolds facility been made during town court's order 1060771 certifying the p l a i n t i f f employees "Reynolds has demonstrated that as a c l a s s , stating that i n d i v i d u a l i z e d evidence from e a c h c l a s s member i s n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t c o n t r a c t , i f any, e x i s t s between 107. Further, class member w o u l d her conduct promise that "individual evidence be n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e "individual to satisfy ... t h e i r 825 that 825 S o . 2 d a t whether claims" 825 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 7 . issues and t h a t Rule 23(b)(3)'s [breach-of-contract] standard i n this terms agreement Thus, "the p l a i n t i f f predominance we claims." employees r e q u i r e m e n t as Reynolds Metals, no contract case. Here, c l a s s member i s t h e terms o f Therefore, n o t be r e q u i r e d e x i s t e d between previously, by each a r e unambiguous. case w i l l of that signed Both p a r t i e s have argued t h a t agreement contract the lease not o r a l . lease court a h i s or So. 2d a t 108. written, the each of proof predominate[d] i n Reynolds M e t a l s i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h i s the from i n f a c t c o n s t i t u t e d an a c c e p t a n c e " o f t h e a l l e g e d plaintiffs'] failed to found of severance b e n e f i t s . concluded [the we i t a n d t h e c l a s s member." the trial to determine whether C I T a n d a n y c l a s s member o r what might be. Moreover, i n d i v i d u a l i z e d evidence 26 will be as discussed required to 1060771 establish McFadden's claims administering the insurance the i tplaced. insurance individual We issues have questions of predominate class law over members, substantive that will Green standard lease Jersey." 8 court necessary F i n . Corp., lease will "[i]n to that must the initially be to e s t a b l i s h 723 agreement used governed Therefore, by So. 2d i n this the laws 9 class t h e same s u b s t a n t i v e the members individual identify the the proof Ex parte ( A l a . 1998 ) . The case p r o v i d e s : of case. whether the claim." 6, Metals, i n this a f f e c t only in fees f o r Reynolds determining common questions the unlike do n o t p r e d o m i n a t e fact those conduct law a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e case and i d e n t i f y be Tree Therefore, that or CIT's programs and i n a s s e s s i n g of proof stated regarding the State law w i l l "[T]his of New apply to C I T a r g u e s t h a t t h e d u t y o f g o o d f a i t h i s an i m p l i e d d u t y arising outside t h e terms of the lease agreement and, therefore, the claim a l l e g i n g i t v i o l a t e d that duty i s not governed by the choice-of-law provision i n the lease agreement. Consequently, according t o CIT, because the c l a s s i n c l u d e s members f r o m a c r o s s the nation, the resolution of t h i s c l a i m would r e q u i r e t h e t r i a l court t o c o n s t r u e t h e laws o f many s t a t e s . McFadden a r g u e s t h a t CIT has r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l . A l t h o u g h CIT m e n t i o n e d t h i s argument g e n e r a l l y i n i t s i n i t i a l motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon w h i c h r e l i e f c a n be g r a n t e d , t h e issue was n o t a r g u e d -- e i t h e r i n i t s b r i e f or at the e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g -- i n r e s p o n s e t o M c F a d d e n ' s m o t i o n f o r class certification. Therefore, we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h i s 8 27 1060771 all the actions claims. under the customers of fees; violated that to previously terms of need actions of of good discussed, standard the the lease of we not lease for i n d i v i d u a l i z e d proof CIT also calculation argues of of common that any and and to and of law require the we there have in the methods assessing cannot and As CIT's by evidence ambiguity e i t h e r of McFadden programs established Therefore, as issues damages w i l l find Bankers insurance be lease unreasonable insurance. agreement, c l a s s member. on i t s American agreement programs CIT's charged can providing do insurance same f o r e a c h predominance the -- -- scope of the of the faith CIT's methods the under that imposition the i n i t s customers being terms administering the CIT's duty the claims were o u t s i d e CIT's a d m i n i s t r a t i o n the reviewing related that resulted and McFadden's Premier program l e d to the charges that agreement; program Moreover, fees will those were be no matters. demonstrate fact, of because a the i n d i v i d u a l i z e d evidence, argument. See R i l e y v. Joint Fiscal Comm. o f Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e , [Ms. 1 0 8 0 4 6 8 , J u n e 19, 2 0 0 9 ] So. 3d , (Ala. 2009) (this Court's "'review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court'" ( q u o t i n g A n d r e w s v . M e r r i t t O i l Co., 612 So. 2d 4 0 9 , 410 (Ala. 1992))). See a l s o B a r n e t t v . E s t a t e o f A n d e r s o n , 966 So. 2d 9 1 5 , 920 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) ("We d e c l i n e t o r e v i e w an i s s u e ... that was n o t c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ) . 28 1060771 and McFadden has n o t p r e s e n t e d t h e t r i a l wide method o f d e t e r m i n i n g damages. States Court of Appeals B e l l M o b i l e Systems, 2003), "[t]he individuation actions i s rarely ... common courts satisfied case, even as in predominate customer's convinced highly predominate find i f individual Smilow, requirement, damages w o u l d this damages Court individualized as t h e U n i t e d noted i n Smilow Rule liability, despite requirement remain." of law then t o be In this and fact thereby s a t i s f y i n g the the fact i s a likely damages c o m p u t a t i o n s . " Snow, 823 S o . 2 d a t 676 ( e m p h a s i s Where regarding l i a b i l i t y , questions there class 23(b)(3). have t o be c a l c u l a t e d . that class- i n consumer damages i s s u e s common a 3 2 3 F . 3 d 3 2 , 40 ( 1 s t C i r . t h e predominance r e g a r d i n g CIT's predominance of Circuit d e t e r m i n a t i v e under questions generally However, f o rthe F i r s t v. S o u t h w e s t e r n court with added). that each CIT has n o t "potential for Compass Bank v . 9 C I T a r g u e s i n i t s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t M c F a d d e n ' s damages c l a i m s a r e " b a s e d on a t h e o r y t h a t C I T was u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d . " CIT's r e p l y b r i e f , a t 31. CIT argues t h a t McFadden a v o i d s using the phrase "unjust enrichment" to describe i t s claims, b e c a u s e , i t a r g u e s , M c F a d d e n knows t h a t " ' u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t c l a i m s ... a r e u n s u i t a b l e f o r c l a s s - a c t i o n t r e a t m e n t . ' " CIT's r e p l y b r i e f , a t 31-32 ( q u o t i n g A v i s R e n t - a - C a r S y s . , I n c . v . H e i l m a n , 876 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 3 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . However, t h i s argument appears f o r t h e f i r s t time i n CIT's r e p l y brief. " ' [ T ] h i s C o u r t does n o t a d d r e s s i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t 9 29 1060771 Finally, 23(b)(3) predominance affirmative voluntary issues that McFadden requirement of waiver, will defenses require CIT established invoices argues, by f o r i t s leased mitigated citing no i t s damages no CIT a r g u e s , i t s o f damages, t o b e common authority, consistent that authority, by the Rule and Any 1 0 CIT's w a i v e r and m i t i g a t i o n - equipment citing because, meet individualized proof. appear McFadden's and, again insurance would cannot mitigation of law or f a c t underlying members. have defenses payment of-damages charge CIT argues that payment included that providing to a l l class waiver of an monthly insurance McFadden proof c o v e r a g e . However, t h e c l a s s c e r t i f i e d of i s could i t s own by t h e t r i a l time i n a r e p l y b r i e f . ' " C o b b v . F i s h e r , [Ms. 1 0 7 1 5 0 1 , A p r i l 3, 200 9] So. 3d , ( A l a . 2009) ( q u o t i n g B y r d v . L a m a r , 846 S o . 2 d 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . CIT also states i n a conclusory fashion that "[o]ther a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s p l e a d [ e d ] by [CIT], i n c l u d i n g e s t o p p e l , ratification, acquiescence, and laches likewise raise individual issues." CIT's b r i e f , a t 58. However, w i t h t h e exception of a supra c i t e t o C o m p a s s B a n k , C I T c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y a n d p r o v i d e s no a r g u m e n t a s t o how t h e s e d e f e n s e s w i l l require i n d i v i d u a l i z e d proof. " ' " [ I ] t i s not the function o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make o r a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on undelineated g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r argument."'" L a t h e m v . D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r . , 927 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 820 n . 11 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g B u t l e r v . Town o f A r g o , 871 S o . 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n D y k e s v . L a n e T r u c k i n g , I n c . , 652 S o . 2 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . 1 0 30 1060771 court includes standard lease to provide under charges agreement. I t would the we same way regarding consider defense finding raises CIT's of predominance. "This a l l class that e i t h e r of these argument who v o l u n t a r i l y that its Court has l o n g apply members. defenses. voluntary- that defeat recognized a the U - H a u l Co. o f A l a b a m a , I n c . v . "In both pays that any i n d i v i d u a l i z e d 893 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 311 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . the defense. incurred arguments would to a failed therefore, i n d i v i d u a l i z e d issues defense of v o l u n t a r y payment." party appear, and m i t i g a t i o n - o f - d a m a g e s payment recognized into paid insurance w o u l d be r e q u i r e d Johnson, entered of insurance, CIT has n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d Finally, who a f t e r they substantially proof customers C I T a n d who, the lease Therefore, those agreement w i t h proof CIT's waiver in only New J e r s e y Alabama sums w i t h o u t a n d New objection has a l s o Jersey, [with a full knowledge o f a l l t h e f a c t s ] cannot s u b s e q u e n t l y m a i n t a i n a ... claim [or] to recover extortion." e.g., U-Haul, Doe Law F i r m , t h e funds CIT's brief, paid absent a t 30 893 S o . 2 d a t 311 31 (citations (quoting 668 S o . 2 d 5 3 4 , 537 fraud, (Ala. duress, omitted). See, Mt. A i r y I n s . Co. v . 1995)). 1060771 As CIT a c k n o w l e d g e s , A l a b a m a l a w r e c o g n i z e s exception at to the voluntary 55. In that voluntarily regard, paid under payment [defense]." " [ i ] t i s well a mistake even where t h e p a r t y p a y i n g a CIT's settled of fact "'mistake' may brief, that be money recovered, h a d means o f a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e r e a l facts." S h e r r i l l v . F r a n k M o r r i s P o n t i a c - B u i c k - G M C , I n c . , 366 So. 251, 2d 257 ( A l a . 1978) specially) (citations concerned, according New law and Jersey The f o u n d a t i o n omitted). (Torbert, C.J., I n s o f a r as t h i s to CIT, "there concurring exception i s i s no d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n ... A l a b a m a l a w . " CIT's b r i e f , a t 55. f o r CIT's argument t h a t McFadden's claims are b a r r e d by t h e v o l u n t a r y - p a y m e n t d o c t r i n e i s t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t McFadden 'Insurance inquiry the rise of $15.15 or objection." trial paying Charges' "paid invoices with a l i n e item court to the defense (Emphasis indicating being added.) billed o f ... v o l u n t a r y that defense across that brief, months a t 29-30. without However, any as noted i n the c l a s s - c e r t i f i c a t i o n order, " [ i ] f the charge a f t e r may a p p l y CIT's f o r 58 showing payment, then the court t h e b o a r d t o e a c h c l a s s member." Furthermore, McFadden f o r i t i s enough t o g i v e CIT p o i n t s o r any o t h e r 32 t o no member evidence of the class 1060771 received any information, regarding the reasonableness much less full information, of the insurance charges or the manner i n w h i c h CIT s e t i t s i n s u r a n c e c h a r g e s , a l l o c a t e d charges between administered i t and i t s insurance other companies, programs. or Thus, otherwise we are not c o n v i n c e d by CIT's argument t h a t i t s v o l u n t a r y - p a y m e n t raises individualized issues that defeat a those defense finding of predominance. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c e r t i f y i n g t h i s c a s e as a Therefore, class action. certification the trial court's class- J J . , concur i n the order i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Woodall and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r . Lyons, Smith, rationale i n part Stuart Murdock, and concur and B o l i n , and i n the r e s u l t . J J . , concur Cobb, C . J . , r e c u s e s Shaw, herself. 33 i n the r e s u l t . 1060771 LYONS, Justice concurring I Part (concurring in the rationale i n part and i n the r e s u l t ) . concur i n a l laspects of t h e main opinion I I , as t o w h i c h I concur Smith, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, i n the r e s u l t . 34 except f o r

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.