18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

418 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition the Act, compensation was only provided when actual property or possessions were taken. The Appellate Court reasoned that, although it was sympathetic to the hardships endured by Plaintiffs due to the pandemic, under the plain terms of the Act, just compensation was warranted only when the possession of actual property occurred. For these reasons, the Appellate Court held that the trial court correctly denied the petition for mandamus relief. Shackelford, et al. v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., 2021 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1639 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. Sept. 28, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action seeking to recover from Defendant’s alleged non-payment of the required statutory interest on arbitration awards or judgments. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. As to the numerosity requirement, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that there were 66 potential class members who allegedly received payment from Defendant on an arbitration award or judgment in Illinois that did not include the required statutory interest. Defendant argued that individual factual questions predominated over commonality, thereby defeating class certification. The Appellate Court determined that Plaintiff established a common legal question of whether the class members were entitled to interest on their arbitration award or judgment that predominated over questions concerning the individual members. Therefore, the Appellate Court ruled that because Plaintiff’s claim presented a legal question common to all class members, the successful adjudication of that claim would necessarily establish a right of recovery for them. Id . at *12. The trial court had held that Plaintiff was an adequate class representative because she had "vigorously litigated this matter for over five years" and had "every incentive to continue doing so." Id . at *13. The Appellate Court agreed with that finding. The Appellate Court concluded that because Plaintiff satisfied the first three requirements for class certification, it was reasonable for the trial court to find that she had also met the appropriateness requirement. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Sproull, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co ., 2021 Ill. LEXIS 619 (Ill. Sept. 23, 2020). Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendant seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract in connection with a property damage claim under his homeowners policy after his home was damaged in a storm in 2015. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant improperly depreciated labor costs in determining the actual cash value (“ACV”) for the claim and concealed this practice from policyholders. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and argued that its method of calculating ACV complied with Illinois law. The trial court denied the motion but agreed to certify the following question for interlocutory review: "where Illinois’ insurance regulations provide that the ‘actual cash value’ or ‘ACV’ of an insured, damaged structure is determined as ‘replacement cost of property at time of loss less depreciation, if any,’ and the policy does not itself define actual cash value, may the insurer depreciate all components of replacement cost (including labor) in calculating ACV?" Id . at *1-2. The Illinois Appellate Court reformulated the question to address solely labor costs, rather than all components of replacement cost, and answered the question in the negative. Id . at *2. On further review to the Illinois Supreme Court, it concluded that the plain language of the policy and the relevant Illinois insurance regulation compelled the conclusion that labor may not be depreciated. The Supreme Court ruled that the policy was ambiguous on the issue of labor depreciation, and thus it was required to construe the language in favor of the insured. The Supreme Court noted that the language did not specify how to define "depreciation" for purposes of ACV and also failed to include a way to calculate “depreciation.” Id . at *41. The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff’s interpretation of the policy was reasonable, and that many other case law authorities had ruled that "replacement cost less depreciation" would not necessarily indicate to a reasonable policyholder that labor would be depreciated in determining actual cash value. Id . at *42. Accordingly, the Supreme Court therefore agreed with the Appellate Court’s answer to the certified question, but based on different reasoning. State Of Illinois, et al. v. Elite Staffing Inc., Case No. 2020-CH-5156 (Ill. Cir. Ct. May 26, 2021). Plaintiff, the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, filed a class action alleging violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act in connection with Defendants’ implementation of no-poach agreements for temporary workers. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied. Defendants were three temporary staffing companies that regularly placed workers at the same locations. Plaintiff contended that Defendants agreed not to hire temporary employees from one another’s companies, agreed not to offer better wages in order to attract employees, and if a temporary employee were to come to a different staffing agency, the agency agreed to send the employee