The defen dant s i nc l ud e the i ns ur erSt at e Far m Fi re an d 1 Casualty Com pany , as w el l as its a ffil iat es St ate Farm M utual (co n tin u ed ...) 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1725 C Y NT HI A K ART MAN, et a l., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v. S TATE F A RM M UTUAL A UTOMO BI LE I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:07- cv-00474

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 14, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, W OO D , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu it Judg e . Afte r a s eve re hai l sto rm st ruck cen tral Ind iana in A p ril2006, tho us an d s of hom eow ne rs fi l e d c l a i ms wi th S t a t e F a r m F i r e a n d C a s u a l t y C o mpa ny 12 N o. 09

- 1725

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 A utom obi le I nsurance Co m pany and State Farm G eneral I ns ur anc e C om pany . St at e Far m Fi re an d Cas ual t y Com pany i s s u e d t h e ho me o w n e r ’ s p o l i c i e s a ti s s u e i n th i s c a s e . We u se “Sta te Fa rm ” to refer collectiv ely to all thr ee d efend an ts. f orhai ldam age to the ro of s o fthei r hom es. S tat e Far m ther eafterpai d m i l l i ons i n proper ty- dam age cl ai m s, but not al lo fthe pol i cyhol ders w er e s ati sfi ed w i th the i r paym ents. S eve ra lbr ou gh t thi s pro posed cl ass act i o n i n s t a t e c o ur ta l l e g i ngb r e a c h o fc o nt r a c t, b a d- f ai th denia lo fi nsurance benefi ts, and unj ust e nric h m ent. The l aws ui t so ug htda m ag es a nd a n inj unc ti on r equi r i ng S ta te F ar m t o r eins pec t al lc l as s m em ber s’ r o o f s pur su an t to a “ unif or m , r eas onabl e, and ob j ecti ve” sta nd ar d fo r eva l ua t i ng ha i l da mag e . S t a t e F a r m r e mov e d the c a s e to federa lco urt. The pla in tiffs m ove d to cer ti fy a dam age s cl ass under Rul e 23 ( b) ( 3) o fthe F ede r alRul es o fCi vi lProc edu r e an d a l so

— or alt er n at ive ly

— a cl ass fori nj uncti ve re l i efunder Rule 23(b) ( 2)
. T h e di str i ct c ourti ssued a spl i t deci si on o n the m oti on. The co urt decl i ned to c er ti fy a Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) dam age s cl ass , hold in g that e ach pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m o f und er paym ent re quir ed an i nd i vi du al i zed f actual i nquir y o n t he m er i ts. But the cour t co ncl ud ed that a cl ass cl ai m f ori nj uncti ve re l i ef coul d procee d und er R u le 23(b)( 2); the cou rt certified a class to d eterm i ne wh etherS tat e F ar m sho uld be r equi re d to re i nspect pol i cyhol ders’ r oo f s pursuant to a “unifor m and obj ecti ve sta nd ar d.” S tat e F ar m a p p eal ed, ar gui ng tha t ce rt i fi cati o n un derRul e 23 ( b) ( 2) i s no t per m i ss ibl e f o r thi s ac ti o n.N o. 09

- 1725 3 St ate Fa rm i s r i ght. Th is c as e i s no t a pp ro pri ate f or cl ass cer ti fi cati on und er Rule 23(b) ( 2)
. A s an ini ti al m atter, the p lai nt iffs’ claim f or i njun ctive reli ef suffers fro m so m e s er iou s c on c ep tu al c on fu s i o n . Th is is a su it f or bre ach of contr act and b ad-f ai th denia l ofins urance ben efi ts, th e rem ed y for w hich is d a m ages. State Farm ha d a c ontr actualo bl i gat i on t o pay pol i cyhol ders f or th eir h ail-d am ag e los se s a n d a c or re sp on d i n g d u ty in to r t n o t t o d e n y c l a i ms i n b a d f a i th

. B u t th e r e i s no contr act orto rt
-base d du ty re quir i ng the i nsurerto use a p a r t i c u l a r s t a n d a r d f o r a s s e s s i n gh a i ld a ma g e . As such, ther e i s no i nd ependent cogni zabl e wrong to supp or t a cl ai m f ori nj uncti ve re li efr equi ring S tat e Farm to c o nduc t a cl as s- wi de r o o fr eins pec ti o n pur su an t t o a “ un i f o r m a nd o bj e c t i v e ” s t a nd a r d. M or e g ener al l y, cer ti fi cation of a cl ass under R ule 23 ( b) ( 2) i s per m i ss ibl e o nl y whenc l as s pl aint i ff s see k “ fi nali nj un cti ve re l i ef” that i s “ appropri ate r especting the cl ass as a w h ole

. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 23(b)(2). H er e, the r equeste d i nj uncti on i s nei ther“a pp ro pri ate ” nor“fi nal

. ” The r el i efi s no t a pp ro pri at e fo r seve ra lr eas o ns , n o tl e a s to fwh i c h i s tha tthe nor m alr e med y f o r wr o ng fulde ni a lo fi ns ur a nc e b e ne fi t s i s da mages, not equi tabl e r el i ef

. M or eov er, the i nj uncti on e nvi si oned by the pl ai nti ff s would i n no s ense be a fi nalr em edy. A cla ss -w id e r o o f rein sp ec tio n w ou ld on ly lay an ev id en tiary f ou nd ation for subs eq ue nt i nd ivi d ua l d eterm i nati ons ofl i abi l i ty and dam age s. Fi nal l y, cer ti fi cati on o fan “ i ssues ” cl ass under Rul e 23 (c)( 4) i s ne i th ers o ug htno r a ppr o pr i at e he r e. The4 N o. 09

- 1725 parti cul arst andard St ate Fa rm used to ev al uate pol i cyhol ders’ hai ldam age i s no t a n el em ent o fany case pre se n te d by th es e p lain t i f f s fo r fin al inj u n c tiv e re lief. In som e c ir cu m stan ces, the ap p li cab le stand ard of care m i g htb e a pr o pers epa r ab l e i ss ue , b uti n thi s case, the ul ti m at e r el i efs o ug hti s m o ne y d am ages, a nd thus the re quir em ents f orcer ti fi cati on o f a dam age s cl ass under Rule 23(b) ( 3) m ust be sa tisfi ed. H er e, theywere not. Acco r di ng l y, we r ev er se the di stric t co ur t’ s o r dera nd re m and w i th i nstr ucti ons to decert i fy the cl ass .
I . B a c kg r o und S ta te F ar m i ss ue s homeo wner ’ s i ns ur an ce pr o vi di ng c ov er ag e for “a c c id en ta l d ire c t ph ys ica l los s to p ro p er ty ,” in c lu d in g d am ag e re su ltin g fro m w in d st or m s o r h ail. I n A pri l 2006 a s eve re hai l sto rm swept thro ugh the I nd i anapol i s m etropol i tan a re a ca usi ng widespre ad proper ty dam age . S om e 4 9, 000 State Far m pol i cyhol ders fi l ed c l a i ms f o r p r o p e r t y d a ma g e a s ar e s u l to fth e s t o r m. C l a i ms und erhom eowner’ s pol i ci es w er e a dj usted based on i nd i v i du a l i z e d a s s e s s men t s o fthe h o meo wne r ’ s p r o perty d am age. State Farm has g u id e lines to ai d adj us tors i n deter m i ni ng a hom eowner’ s l oss but does not use a si ngl e, uni f or m te st f oras ses si ng hai ldam age . O n c e a n adj ustorpro vi des a proper ty- dam age es tim ate , the pol i cyhol der i s per m i tte d t o conte st that deci si on in s eve ra lways. Fi rs t, an insured m ay re quest th ata no th eri ns ur an ce a dj us to r pr o vide a n inde pen den t evaluati on. A l so, speci fi cal l y forl oss es i n co n n ecti on w i th the A pri l20 06 hai l sto rm , S tat e F ar m per m i tte dN o. 09

- 1725 5

Initia lly, the ar b itratio n re sults w ere b ind ing on all pa rt i es. 2 H ow ev er, in J an u ary 2 00 7 Sta te Fa rm rev ised this p olicy so th a tth e a rb i t r a t i o n r e s u l t s w e r e o n l y b i n d i n g o n S t a t e F a r m. Throu ghou t the cours e ofthi s li ti gati on, the num ber ofnam ed 3 plaint iff s has notrem ained cons ta n t. A t the t im e this app eal w a s file d , 17 n a m ed p la in tiffs r em a in ed , in cl u d in g p la in tiff (co n tin u ed ...) diss ati sfi ed pol i cyhol d ers t o chal l enge thei r dam age est i m ate s in arbi tr ati on pro ceedi ngs. Through M ar ch 18 , 2 20 08 , S ta te F ar m us ed the se pr o ce dur es t o a dj us t an d p a y m o r e th a n $ 2 6 3 m i l l i o n i n p r o p e r t y - d a m a g e c l a i ms r e s u l t i n gfr o m th e h a i l s t o r m. InM ar c h 20 07se ve r al p olic yh old er s filed th is law su it i n sta te co ur ta s s e r t i ngc l a i ms f o r b r e a c h o fc o nt r a c t, b a df ai thd en i alo fi ns ur an ce b en efi ts , a nd unj us t en r i ch

m en t a ris in g o u t of St at e F ar m ’s a dj u st m en t o f th eir cl ai m s f o r ha i lda m ag e to the roofs o fthe i r ho m es . The su it w as br ou gh t a s a cla ss ac t i o n on be h alf ofap p ro x im ately 7, 000 p oli cyh olders an d all eg ed that State Farm en gage d i n p ervasive u nd ercom p en sation of roof

da ma g e c l a i ms s t e mmin gfr o m th e A p r i l2 0 0 6 h a i l s t o r m. As pa r t o fthe i r theor y tha t S ta te F ar m b r ea ch ed i ts c o ntr act an d t o r t-ba se d dut i es t o po l i cy ho l der s, the pl ainti ff s alle ged thatthe i nsurerf ai l ed to i m ple m ent a un i f o r m “ r ea so nabl e, o bj ec ti ve ” st an dar d f o ra ss es sing hai l

- dam age d ro of s. T o highlight th e prob lem s assoc iated w it h S tate Farm ’s ad ho c me th o d f o r e v a l u a t i n gh a i l

- d a ma g e c l a i ms , the pla in tiff s ci ted the exper i ences ofcl ass r epres entat i ves K ar en St er gar and Hong Gao. St er gar al l ege d th at w h en 36 N o. 09

- 1725

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 Cynthi a Kar t m an, the fi rs tl i s ted p lain t i ffi n the c apt i on of th is c a se . she s ubm i tte d her cl ai m , S tat e F ar m se nt se ver al in su ra n c e a dj u st or s t o a ss es s h er roo f d am ag e a n d all provi ded vastly d i ffer ent o pini ons. S ter garcl ai m s that the fi rs t a dj ustordi d not e ven step o ut o fhi s ca r, ye t d et er m i ned the cl ai m was onl y worth $70 0. Dis sat i sfi ed wi ththis offer, S te r g arr eque st ed an o th ero pi ni o n. Sta te F arm then sent a s eco nd adj ustorwh o cl i m bed on th e roof an d sugg ested that Stergar need ed an “en tire n e w r o o f, ” b u ts t a t e d th a th e c o ul d no tp r o v i d e a c o mp e n s a t i o n fi g u r e u n t i la “ r o p e s - a n d- l a d d e r s t e a m” e x a mi ned the dam age . W hen the ro pes- and-lad d er s t eam arrived , it d isagreed w it h th e se c o n d a d justor’s opi ni on a nd co ncl ud ed i nstea d that S ter gar ’ s r oo fsust a i ne d $ 3 , 0 0 0 wo r th o fda mag e t o s hing l e s , v e nt s , a nd a dow nspout. The St ate Fa rm ad j ustorwh o exam i ned Gao’s r oo f deter m i ned that ther e was so m e dam age to vents , gutt er s, an d t h e ho m e’ s l eft a nd r earel evat i ons, and al so that so m e scr eens on the l eft a nd r earel evat i ons needed re pla ci ng. S tat e F ar m pai d $434. 08 for thes e r epai rs . Gao w as n otsa tis fied ; s h e be liev ed sh e n ee d ed a c om p let ely new r oo f

. S om eti m e l ate r, she dis cove re d an i nter i or l ea ki n h erho us e an d c o nt acte d St at e F ar m . The insu rer det erm ined that the A p ril20 0 6 hailstorm caused the l eakand pai d fo r thi s r epair. Gao bel i eve d th e leakwas e vi den ce tha t he r r o o fda m ag e was e x-N o. 09

- 1725 7 tensi ve and that S tat e F ar m sh ou ld p ay to i nstal la new ro of

. She eve ntual l y re pla ced her ro ofathero w n expense. T h e p l a i n t i ff s s o u g htco mp e n s a t o r y a n d p u n i t i v e d a mage s a nd al so re quested inj u n c tive r el i efi n the f or m o f a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n gS t a t e F a r m t o r e i n s pe c ta l lc l a s s me mbe r s ’ r oofs pu rsu an t to a un iform and obj ective stan d ard for ev alu at in g h ail d am ag e. St at e F ar m rem ov ed th e s u it to fede r alc o ur t pur suan t t o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 33 2( d)

. The pla i nt i ff s the n mov e d fo r c l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n un de r bo th R ules 23(b)(2) an d (b)(3). The dis tr i ct j ud ge decl i ned to cer ti fy a Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) dam age s cl ass bas ed on a l ack ofco m m on i ssues o f f act; ea ch pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m o funderpaym ent r equi re d i ndi vi dual i ze d determi na ti o n o n the mer i ts
. Butthe j ud ge cer tified a cl ass under Rul e 2 3( b) ( 2) to adj ud i cate the r equest f oran inj uncti on r equi ring S tate Fa rm to cond u ct a cl ass - w i de ro ofr ei nspecti on pursuant to a “u n iform an d ob j ec tiv e s t a n d ar d for e va lu at in g h ail damag e cl ai m s. ” The j udg e adde d tha t he woul d us e th e R ule 23(b)(2) inj un ction p roceed ing to asses s St ate Farm ’s l i abi l i ty f ordam ages, and that i fS tat e F ar m was f ound li abl e, he woul d recon si der whether to cer ti fy a Rul e 2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) da mag e s c l a s s o r a s ub c l a s s . T he j ud ge defi ne d the Rul e 2 3(b) ( 2) i nj unc ti o n c l as s as i nc l udi ng a l lp o l i c y h o l d e r s w h o s ub mi t t e d i n s u r a n c e c l a i ms re sul ti ng fro m the A p ril 2006 hai l sto rm s a nd di d not re cei ve suffi ci ent c om pensati on f oran “ enti rel y new ro ofatS tat e F ar m ’ s e xpense, m i nus any applicabl e ded uc tion or d e p r eciation.” Ex clud ed from the class w ere thos e ind i vi du als w ho had r eso l ved thei r cl ai m s with8 N o. 09

- 1725 St ate Far m vi a bi nd i ng arbi tr ati on, set tl em en t agr eem ent, o r a j ud gm en t in s ta te o r fede r alc o ur t. S ta te F ar m s o ug ht i nter l ocuto ryr evi ew o f the dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s ce rt i fi cati on o r derpur su an t to Rul e 23 ( f ) , a nd we g r an te d the pe ti ti o n.

I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew th e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o cer ti fy a i nj uncti on cl ass und erRule 23 ( b) ( 2) f orabuse o fdi scr eti o n. A n d r e ws v. C he vy Chas eBank, 54 5 F
. 3d 570, 57 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 08)
. Ordi nari l y, the dist ri ct c ourthas substa nti all ati tude i n the m anage m en t of c om ple x cl ass ac ti o n l i ti g at i o n. Se e C arnegi e v. Household Int’l, Inc. , 37 6 F. 3d 656, 66 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( district c ourt s m ay devi se “i m aginati ve soluti on s” to r eso l ve probl em s cr eat ed by class action s). H er e, however, the cl ass -c er ti fi cati on deci si on re st s on a l ega ler ro r. The j ud ge decl i ned to ce r ti fy a da m ag es c l as s unde r Rul e 23 ( b) ( 3) b uttho ug ht the c l ai m f ori nj uncti ve re l i efwas appropri ate f orclass tr e at m en t u n d er R u le 2 3(b )(2) . U n d er lyin g t h is s p lit det er m i na ti o n i s a l eg almis un d er st an di ngabo utthe nature of the pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s; “ ‘ pu re l y l ega l ’ deter m i nati o ns ma de i n s up po r to f[ a c l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n] de c i s i on ar e r evi ew ed de novo

. ” An dre ws , 545 F. 3d at 573.

A. C l a r i fy i n gt h e C l a i ms A ce n tr al p ro b lem w ith th e c ou rt ’s o r d e r i s th at it m i sc o nc eptua l i ze s th e cl ai m s i n thi s ca se . Al th o ug h the com p lai nt i nv oke s several l egal theories, th e plaintiff s ha ve on ly one cogn iz a ble i njury

— u n d er p ay m en t o f th eirN o. 09

- 1725 9

W ith extre m ely lim ited excep tion s, p u tativ e class m em b ers in 4 s ui t s f or m one t ar y dam age s ar e en t i t l ed t o n ot i c e ofthe pe ndi ng a ct io n an d an o p p o rt u n ity to o p t o u t. Je ffer so n v . In g er so ll In t’l Inc. , 19 5 F. 3d 89 4 89 7 ( 7th Ci r. 199 9) ( c i t i ng O rt iz v. Fibreboard C orp. , 5 2 7U. S
. 8 1 5 ( 1 9 9 9 ) )
. T h e o p t
- o u tme c h a n i s m a l l o ws p lain t i ffs w ho ha v e suffered gre ater -than -av era g e d am ag es to sue on theirow n and pursue a l arger- than- average m onetary a w a rd

. In reA l l stat e Ins. C o. , 4 0 0 F .3d 50 5 , 5 0 7 ( 7 t h C ir . 20 0 5 ). Bec aus e the no tice and o pt
- outpr oc edur al s afeg uar ds aut om a tic a lly at ta ch to al l cl a sse s ce rt ifie d u n d er R u le 23 ( b )(3), d am ag es actio ns ar e g en era lly cer tifi e d u nd er th is sub d iv isio n . F ED . R. C IV . P. 23( c) ( 2) ( B). In c ontra st wh en an i njuncti ve rem ed y is s oug ht, m em bers ofthe putati ve cl ass are t ypi c al l y no te nt i t l ed t o o ptoutbe c aus e the i nj unc t i on wil l us ual l y ha ve the s am e eff ec tonal l m em ber s ofthe c l a s s as in d iv id u a l su its w o u ld . F ED . R. C IV . P. 2 3 (c)(2 )(A ); In re A ll state , 400 F. 3d at 506. insu ran ce claim s for ha il dam age to th eir roofs

— an d pros pecti ve i nj uncti ve re l i ef i s not a proper re m edy for that ki nd o fi nj ury. In st ea d , thi s i s s i m plyan a cti on f or dam ages

— no t th e dualr emedi es o fa n inj unc ti o n pl us d am age s

— an d if su ita b le for cla ss ad j u d ica tio n atall, m ay be ce r t i fied on ly u n d er R u le 2 3(b )(3)
. Se eJe f f e rs on v. In ge rs ol l In t ’l Inc. , 195 F. 3d 894, 897 (7th C ir. 1999). 4 Because the di str i ct c ourtco rr ectly deni ed Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) cer ti fi cati on ba sed o n the parti cul ar i zed f acts o fea ch pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m , thi s cl ass act i on s houl d have ended ther e. N onethel ess , i n an appare nt eff or t t o m ake thei r case m ore am en able to class certification, th e plaintiff s10 N o. 09

- 1725

Ev en i fSt ate Farm had a cognizable l egal oblig a ti on to use a 5 uni f or m an d obj ec t i ve s t anda rd for e val uat i ng h ai l -da m age cl a im s, an e q u ita b le re m ed y w o u ld n o t n ec es sa ri ly fol lo w . A re m e d y in equ ity is aw ard ed in exce p tion al circu m stan ces, a n d as w e e xp la in , i n f ra , t h e cla im s in th is c a se d o n o t sa tis fy th e t ra d iti o n a l te st fo r inju n ct iv e r el ie f. incl ud ed a separ ate re quest f or i nj uncti ve re l i ef i n th eir com pla i nt. For f actual supp or t they al l ege d th at State F ar m f ai l ed to i m pl ementa “ r ea so nabl e, o bj ec ti ve ” st an dard to as ses s the hai ldam age to thei r ro ofs . Thi s a l l ega tion, an d the ac com p an ying requ est for injun ct ive rel ief, cre ate d the i l l usi on that S tat e F ar m had two dis ti nct l ega lo bl i gat i ons ar i si ng under the expre ss ori m pli ed t e r ms o ft he i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t : a n o b l i g a t i o n t o c o mpensate i nsured hom eowners f orthe hail d am age to thei r ro of s and ani nde pen den tly a ct ionab l e duty t o e xam ine allhail- d am age d r o ofs pu rsu an t to a un iform a nd o bj e c t i v e s t a nd a r d. I n ess ence, then, the pla i ntiffs cl ai m ed that they suffer ed two separ ate i nj uri es

— u n d er p a y m en t o f th eir hai l

- dam age cl ai m s and a vi o l at i o n o f a di st i nc t ri g ht to ha ve th eir ha il-d am aged roof s evalua ted un d er a unif or m and obj ecti ve sta nd ar d. To the exte nt th at the fi r s ti nj ur y p r o v e d ina pp r o pr i a t e f o r cla ss - wi de a dj ud i cati on (be cause each pol i cyhol der’ s cl ai m was unique) , the seco nd i nj ury ( so the a rg u m en t g oes ) was co m m o n t o the c l as s an d c o ul d b e r edr es se d b y a n inj u n c tio n ord er in g a cla ss -w id e re in sp ec tio n . T h is 5 p ar sin g of re m e d i e s g av e th e p lain tiffs a fallb ac k p os iti on o n the cl ass -cer ti fi cati on quest i on. I ftheyf ai l ed toN o. 09

- 1725 11

R eview of the cl ass - cer ti fic ati on d eci si on in this cas e re quires 6 a prelim ina ry loo k at th e m e r i ts. S ee S za b o v . B ridg ep or t M ac h s., Inc. , 24 9 F
. 3d 6 72 , 67 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ) ( when que s t i ons c oncer ning cl ass cer ti fic ati on overlap w ith the m eri ts , th e court m ay exam ine th e m er i t s a s n ecessar y to reso lv e the thre sho ld q u es tio n s). w i n cer ti fi cati on o fa dam age s cl ass u n d er Rule 23 ( b) ( 3) bas e d o n l a c k o f c o mm o na l i t y, the y c o ul d s t i l l a r g ue f or an i nj uncti on cl as s under Rule 23(b) ( 2) to adj ud i cate w heth e r S t a t e F a r m br e a c he d a n o b l i g a t i o n t o use a un iform an d ob j ec tiv e sta n d ar d to ev alu at e h a ildam age d ro of s. This techni que ofr ecas ti ng a s trai ghtf or w ar d cl ai m f or dam age s as a cl ai m f ordam age s and i nj unc ti ve r el i efr uns i nto tr ou b l e o n so m e ba si c princi ple s o fco m m on l aw

— m o stfunda m en ta l l ytha t a cl ai m o fi njury i s no t cogn iz a b le u nless it results from the brea ch of a recogn ized l egal du ty ow ed to the p lai nt iff. Se e, e . g. , D oe v. Welbo rn , 110 F.3d 52 0, 52 3 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); Babcoc kv. White, 10 2 F .3d 26 7, 27 1 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ). A n on c og n iza b le cl ai m can supp or t nei thera j ud gm ent no r a r em edy. See Jone s v. Re agan , 696 F.2d 551, 554 (7th C ir
. 1983). Si m plyput, S tat e Farm had no ind ependent duty

— w he th er soun d ing in cont ract or tort

— to u se a parti cul arm ethod to e val uate hai l

- dam age cl ai m s. St at e F ar m ’s a lleg ed u n d er p ay m en t o f th e p lain tiffs ’ h aildam age cl ai m s i s a co gni zabl e wrong i n both contr act and tort , but the m e t hodi t use s t o adj ust cl ai m s i s no t i nd ependentl y a cti onabl e. 612 N o. 09

- 1725 The e ss en ce o fa n ins ur ance p oli cy i s a pr o m i se b y the i nsurerto co m pen sa te the i nsured f orthe l oss o f som ethi ng o fvalue that i s co ver ed und erthe pol i cy, th er eb y s hi ftingthe r i sko fl oss fr o m the i ns ur ed to the in su re r. Se e, e . g. , Grou p Li f e & He al t h Ins . Co. v. R o yal D r ug Co. , 440 U
. S. 205, 228 (19 79) ; 1 L EE R. R USS & T HOMAS F. S E GAL LA , C OUCH ON I NSURANCE § 1:6 ( 3d ed. 20 09) [hereina fter C OUCH ] ( defini ng i nsurance); 43 A M . J UR . 2 D Insu ran ce § 2 ( 2010 )
. Insurance entai l s a pro m i se to pay cov e r e d l o s s e s , n o ta c o v e na ntt o u s e a p a r t i c ul ar sta nd a r d fo r e v a l ua t i ngp r o pe r t y da mag e . I fa g i ven pol i cyhol der w as fully com pensated f or th e d am age a tt rib u ta b le t o th e h ails to rm , th en Sta te Fa rm w ill ha ve s at i sfied i ts c o nt r ac tu alo bl i g at i o n rega rdless o f w hetheri t use d a “uni f or m and obj ecti ve” oran a d hoc st an d ar d t o a ss es s t h e d am ag e. St at e F ar m ’s a lleg ed ly i nc o ns i st en t st an dar d f o r ev alua ting ha i l damag e m i g ht be evid en ce ten d ing to show that som e policyhold ers r ec ei ve d i na dequa te c o m pen sa ti o n fo r thei r l o ss es , b ut d oe s no t by itse lf es ta b lish liab ility for b re ac h o r s u p p ly a b as is for inju n c tiv e re lief. Se eInd. Bure au of M ot or Vehicles v. A sh, Inc. , 895 N
. E.2 d 359, 36 5 ( I nd

. A pp . Ct. 20 08 ); s e eal s o U.S
. Val ve s , Inc . v. D r ay, 19 0 F
. 3d 811, 81 4 (7t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (Ind ian a la w ); P a rke S ta te B a nkv. A k ers , 659 N. E. 2d 10 31 , 1 03 4- 35 ( Ind. 1 99 5) ( i t i s th e pl aintif f’ s bu rd en to prove i njury or l oss resu lti n g fr om de fend an t’s bre ach of contrac t). The sam e a nal ysis appli es to the pl ai nti ff s’ cl ai m f or bad-f ai th deni alo fi nsurance benefi ts
. A n i nsurerhas an o bl i gat i on o f“g oo d fa i th and f ai r d ea lin g w i th r espect to th e di sc ha r g e o f[ i ts ] c o nt r ac tu alo bl i g at i o n” t o theN o. 09

- 1725 13 in su re d

. Eri eIns . Co . v . Hic km an , 6 2 2 N. E. 2 d 5 1 5 , 5 1 9 ( I nd

. 1993 ). U nd er Ind iana law this obli gation arises in tort an d i nc l ude s th e “ obl i g at i o n t o r efr ain fr o m ( 1) making anunfo unde d r efus alt o pa y po l icy pr o ce eds ; ( 2) c au sing anunfo unde d de l ayi n mak i ngpa y m en t; ( 3) de ce i ving the insured; and (4 ) exer ci si ng anyunfa i r advantage to press ure an i nsured i nto a s et tle m en t o fhi s cl ai m . ” Id. The pla i nti ff s co ntend that eve n i fS tat e F ar m l acke d a contr a c t ua ldu t y t o i ns pe c tthe i r r o o f s p ur s ua ntto a “ unif or m and obj ecti ve” sta nd ar d, the insurer ’ s duty ofgo od f ai th r equi re d i t t o do so

. T his argu m en t refl ec ts a fun d am en tal m isun d ersta nd i ng o fthe tor t o fbad f ai th. A s rel evanther e, an insu rer breach es its du ty of g o o d f aith w he n it offers “no l egi ti m ate bas i s fordenyi ng l i abi l i ty. ” Fre i dl i nev. She l b y Ins . Co. , 77 4 N .E .2 d 37, 40 (In d . 200 2); a cco rd H i ck m an , 6 22 N .E .2d at52 0. T h e b ad -fait h cla im in t h is case i s p rem ised up on allegations t h a t State Farm und er com pe n sat ed the pla i nti ff s forthe hai ldam age to thei r ro of s. Fo r pu rpos es ofthe tor t, thi s am ounts to a cl ai m thatthe i nsurerenga ged i n an unf ounded r efus alt o ful l y pay the pl aint i ff s’ c l ai m s. The r e ar e no al l eg at i o ns s ug g es ting dece i t o r unf ai r a dva nt ag e as the ba si s f o r the b ad- f ai thc l ai m . I t i s true tha t th e I ndi an a S upr eme Cou rtno te d i n H i ck m an that the types ofbad f ai th i t had i denti fi ed

— b ad-f ai th del ay ordeni alo fpaym ent, decei t, o r tak i ng unf ai r advantage

— wer e not e xh au sti ve. Se eH i ck m an , 6 2 2 N. E
. 2 d a t5 1 9
. B u tth e p l a i nti ff s hav e ci ted no author i ty f orthe propos i ti on that a n i ns ur e r ’ s u s e o fa n a d h o c l o s s - ass es s men ts t a nd a r d, s t a nd i ngal o ne , qua l i fi e s as ani nd e pe nd e ntb a s i s f o r b a d-14 N o. 09

- 1725

M or eo v er, ev en if p lain tiffs are ab le to pro v e the ir b a d -f aith 7 cl aim s, the rem edy fo r S tat e Farm ’ s violat ion ofthe H i ckman (co n tin u ed ...) fait h liab ility

. Se eH i ck m an , 622 N
. E.2 d at 5 20 ( “[ T]he l ack o fd i l i g e nti nv e s t i g a t i o n a l o ne i s n o ts uffi c i e ntt o s up p ort an aw ard

. ”). I ns te ad, the b ad- f ai thc l ai m a sserte d he r e i s a g ar den

va rie ty o n e : B ad fait h aris es w h en an ins u ra n c e c laim i s wr o ng ful l y den i e d andthe i ns ur erkno ws the r e i s “n o ra tio n al, p rin c ip led ba sis ” fo r d en yin g t h e c laim

. Id. ; see al s o M ahan v. Am
. St anda r d Ins . Co. , 86 2 N
. E .2d 66 9, 67 7 ( I nd . C t. A pp . 20 07) ( “[ A ] fi nd i ng o fbad f ai th r equi re s evi dence o f a st ate o fm i nd r efl ecting di shones t purpose , m or alo bl i quity, furti ve desi gn, o r i l lwil l

. ” ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d))

. Thus, to pro ve St ate Fa rm co m m itted the t o r t o f b a d f a i th, the pl a i nt i ff s mus t e s t ab l i s h that th eir cla im s w er e u n d er p aid

— orwrongfully deni ed

— inth e firs t p lac e. S e e He mo C l e a n s e, In c . v . P h i l a d e l p h i a In d e m. Ins . Co. , 831 N
. E
. 2d 259, 264 ( I nd

. A p p . C t. 2 0 0 5 ) (“[T]o deter m i ne wh ether[ the insurer ] br eached the c ove nant o f goo d f a i th a nd f a i r de a l i ngn e c e s s a r i l y r e qu i r e s tha t the f actfi nd er d ete rm i ne wh etheri t wrongly deni ed cove rage . . . .” ). T his requ irem en t alone bars class ce rt i fi c a t i o n b e c a us e i tc a nn o tb e e s t ab l i s he d o n a c l ass - w i de b as is. A ga in, Sta te F ar m ’s in c on sis te n t a p p ro ac h to h aild am ag e e st im at in g (if it w as inc on sis te n t) m igh t b e e vid e n c e t e n d i n gt o s h o w th a tth e i ns ur e r u n d e r p a i d s o me h ai l

- dam age cl ai m s. But i t doe s no t ind ependentl y e stabl i sh l i abi l i ty orsupport a s epara te i nj uncti ve re m edy. 7N o. 09

- 1725 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 d u ty o fg o o d fai th w o u ld b e d a m a g es , no t e q u ita b le re lie f. SeeHi ckman , 622 N
. E.2d at 519- 20. St at ed d iffer en tly , th e pla in tiffs c an n ot p ro ve th at t h e ir ha i l

- damag e cl ai m s wer e den i ed i n b ad f ai thwi th o ut fi rs t s how i ng tha t th ey re cei ved i nadequ ate co ver age for th e i r lo s s. See id .; see also 1 C OUCH § 1: 6. Thi s r equi re s proo fthata com pensabl e l oss occurr ed and w as u n d er p aid or n otp aid atall

— a cla im -spe cifi c inq uiry th at tu rns on the natu re of th e d am age to each plaintiff’s r o o fa nd the a m o untS ta te Far m pa i d t o r epa i r i t. And as th e d istri ct cou rt prop erly he ld in d e cli nin g to certify a Ru l e 2 3( b) ( 3) dam age s cl ass , the cl ass - acti on devi ce is n otap p ro p ria te fo r re so lvin g s u c h h igh ly in d ivid u aliz ed qu es tio n s o f fac t. See M ejdrech v. M et-C o il Sy s. Corp
. , 319 F.3d 91 0, 9 1 1 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ) (on ly ge n u in ely com m on issu e s , i d en tical across allclai m an ts, are su itable for class resolution). Fin ally , w e n ee d n otsp en d m u c h tim e o n th e c laim f o r unj us t en r i ch m en t. In I ndi an a, a s el se wher e, “ th e exi ste nce ofan e xpress contr act precl ud es re cove ryunder the theor y o funj ust e nri chm ent. ” T-3 M ar t i nsvi l l e, LL C v. U
. S. Hol di ng, LL C, 9 1 1 N
. E. 2 d 1 0 0 , 1 2 3 ( I nd

. Ct
. App
. 20 09 )
. Be ca use th e cl as s pl aint i ff s ha d wri tt eni nsu r an ce po l i ci es with S ta te F ar m , the i r unj us t- en r i ch m en t cl ai m is notact i onabl e a nd cannotf or m the basi s for th e r emedy o fa n inj unc ti o n. A t b ot to m , th e a c tio n ab le c l a i ms i n thi s c a s e a r e f or St at e F ar m s’s alleg ed u n d er p ay m en t o f th e p lain tiffs ’ h ail-16 N o. 09

- 1725 d a ma g e c l a i ms

— no th i ngmor e, no th i ng less. The i nsure r ’ s us e o f a n a d ho c l o s s - a s s e s s men t s t a nd a r d may be evi dence that it und er pai d i n so m e ca ses but i s no t a n i nd ependentl y a cti onabl e wrong. W i th thi s co nc eptual cl ar i fi cati on o fthe pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s, we now p ro ceed t o th e issue of cl ass cert ification un d er Ru le 23(b) (2).

B. C erti fi cation ofan I n ju n ction C lass U n d er R u le 23( b)( 2) A cas e m ay be c er ti fi ed as a cl ass act i on under Rule 23(b) ( 2) wh er e the “par ty op p os in g the cl ass has ac t e d o r r efu se d to ac t o n gro u n d s t h at ap p ly ge n er ally to the class, so thatfin a l inj un ctive reli ef or corr es po ndi ngde cl ar at o r y r el i efi s appr o pr iat e r es pec ting th e c las s a s a w h ole .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 23(b) ( 2)
. S ubsum ed i n thi s r ule ar e a t l east tw o i nd ependent re quir em ents: The conte m p lated equit abl e r el i efm ust be ( 1) “a pp ro p ria te res p ec tin g t h e c las s as a w h ole ” a n d (2) “f in al.” H er e, the cont em p l ate d i nj uncti on wil lpro vi de nei ther “appropri ate ” nor “fi nal ” re l i ef f or the al leg ed underpaym ent o fthe pla i nti ff s’ hai l

- dam age cl ai m s. The propos ed i nj uncti on wou ld notbe an appropr i ate re m edy f orany si ngl e pl ai nti ff, l et al one f orthe cl ass as a whol e. To b eg i n w i th, the pl aint i ff s ca nno t sa ti sfy the tes t fora re m edy i n equi ty. A n inj u n c tio n re quir es a showing that: ( 1) the pla i nti ff s hav e s uffer ed i rr eparab le ha r m; ( 2 ) mo ne t a r y da mag e s a r e i na de qu a t e t o r e med y the inj ury; ( 3) an e q u ita bl e r em edy i s warr anted bas ed on th e ba l an ce o fha r dsh i ps be twe enthe pl aint i ff s an d de fen da nt; a nd ( 4 ) the pu b l i c i nt e r e s t wo ul d b e we l l s e rv ed byN o. 09

- 1725 17 th e inj u n c t i o n . e BayIn c . v . M e r c Excha n ge, L
. L
. C. , 547 U
. S. 38 8, 39 1 ( 20 06 ) ( o ut l i ni ngt r adi ti o na lt es t f o r pe r m an en t inj u n c tiv e re lief); s e eal s o 1 D AN B. D OBBS, D O BBS L A W O F R EM ED IES § 2. 9 ( 2d ed. 1993 )
. The thi rd part ofthi s t est

— th e b a l a nc e o fh a r ds hi ps

— tak es on hei gh tened i m port ance w hen the pla i nti ffrequests a “m andator y inj uncti on, ” that is, an inj un ction req u iring th e d efend an t to perform an a ffirm at ive ac t. See D OBBS, s upra § 2.9. A m an d atory i nj unc ti o n i m po se s si gni fi ca ntb ur den s o n the de fen dan t and r equi re s car eful consi derat i on of the in tr usi venes s ofthe or dered ac t, as wellas the diffi cultie s that m ay b e e n c o u n t e r e d i n s u p e r v i s i n gth e e nj o i n e d p a r t y ’ s c o mp lian c e w ith th e c ou rt ’s o rd er . Id. This case cannotsa ti sfy the basic requir em ents f oran i nj u ncti on. Fi rs t, the pla i nti ff s hav e no t s uffer ed irr ep arable ha rm . Th eir inj ury

— the underpaym ent o f th e i r i n s u r a n c e c l a i ms

— is e a s il y rem ed ied by an aw ard o fmo n e y d a ma g e s , a fu l l y a d e q u a t e r e me d y . I tf o l l o ws th at cla ss ce rt ifica tio n u n d er R u le 2 3(b )(2) is n ec es sa rily i m proper . The A dvis or y Com m i tte e Notes to Rule 23 und er sco re thi s ba sic poi nt, not i ng tha t ce rt i fi cati on und erRule 23 ( b) ( 2) “does notexte nd to c as es i n w hi ch th e a p p ro p ria te fina l relie f rela te s ex c lu siv ely or p re d om in an tly to m on ey d am ag es .” F ED . R. C IV . P. 23 ad visory com m ittee’s note (1966). I nj uncti ve re l i efi s a l so not “appropri ate ” because th e h ar d sh ip s o f th e c on te m p lat ed inju n c t i o n w ou ld f al ldi spro port i onate l y o n St ate Fa rm . ( This p oi nt al so demons tr at es the “ fi nal i ty ” pr o bl em. ) As pr o po se d, the i nj uncti on would r equi re S tat e F ar m to car ryo ut a cl ass -18 N o. 09

- 1725 wi de r o o fr eins pec ti o n. Th e d i st r i ctc o ur t defi ne d the cl ass to i ncl ud e al l St ate Far m pol i cyhol ders w h o fi l ed insu ran ce cl ai m s f o r da m ag e r es ul tingfr o m the A p ril 20 06 h ails to rm an d d id n otrec eiv e “ an en tir ely n e w r o o f

. ” I t i s qu i t e p o s s ib l e th a ts o me

— pe r ha ps m an y

— ofthe pol icy h ol ders w ho di d not r ecei ve an “enti re l y new ro of” w er e nonethel ess fully com pensated for th eir ha il -da m age losses. Y et th ese p oli cyh olders woul d b e en ti tl ed to a r eins pec ti o n a t S ta te F ar m ’ s ex pense. Because the Ap ri l20 06 hai l sto rm ge nera ted so m e 7, 00 0 r oof- d amag e cl ai m s, the c o sto fc o m pl y i ng w i th such a n i nj uncti on would be i m m ense. Superv i si ng co m pli ance w i th the envi si oned i nj uncti on w oul d be a dm i ni str ati vely c h al l engi ng. Fe deralRule o f Civi lPro cedure 65( d) m andates that eve ryi nj uncti on “s ta te it s t er m s s p ec ifica lly” an d “d es c rib e in rea so n ab le det ai l ” th e “a cto r a ct s r es tr aine d or r equi r ed” s o tha t th e enj oi n ed p ar ty i s f ai rl y a pp ri sed o fhi s r esponsibi l i ti es an d th e c ou rtca n ob j ec tiv ely as se ss co m p lian c e. F ED . R. C IV . P . 65(d )(1) ; see also Sh o o kv. B d. o f C o un ty C o m m ’rs , 543 F. 3d 597, 604 ( 10th Cir
. 2008 ) ( i nj uncti on m ay not be so vague to oper ate ata “st ra tos pheri c l eve lo fabs tr actio n ”). A s c u rre n tly en vis ion ed , th e inj u n c tio n w ou ld requ ire State Farm to rei ns p ec t the class m em bers’ roofs pur su an t to a “ r ea so nabl e, uni f o r m , a nd o bj ecti ve s ta ndar d. ” Th i s i s f a r t o o g e ne r a l t o s a t i s fy Ru l e 6 5 ( d) , y et to be m or e s peci fi c would essenti al l y r equi re the cour t t o w ri te an i nsurance- adj ustm ent c ode. Fi nal l y, as a pract i calm att er, i t’ s har d to see wh at pu rpos e would be se rv ed by a cl ass-w id e r oo fr ei nspec-N o. 09

- 1725 19

Thi s m ay cons t i t ut e ano the r bar ri ert o c l as s c er t i fi c at i on. 8 W he re a cla ss is no t coh esiv e suc h th at a u niform rem ed y w ill n o t re d re ss th e i nju ri es o f a ll pl ai nt i ff s , c l as s c er t i fi c at i on is t y p ic a lly n o t a p p ro p ri a te
. S ee Shookv. Bd
. of C ou n ty C om m ’rs , 543 F. 3d 597, 604 ( 10th Cir

. 2008) ; L em on v. In t’ l U n i on o f O perati n g E n g’rs , 21 6 F
. 3d 5 77, 58 0 ( 7th Ci r. 2 000) ( c l as s c ohe s i on destr oyed w hen cas e depend s on ad j ud ic ati on of fa cts particu lar to an y sub set of class or th e ne cessary rem ed y d ifferen tia te s m a te ri a lly am o n g th e c la ss m em b er s); buts e e In r e M o num ent alLi

f e Ins. C o. , 36 5 F
. 3d 4 08 , 41 6 ( 5th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( per m i t t i ng class certification e v en tho u g h a p or tion of the class w ou ld re ce iv e n o b en efi t fro m th e c o n te m p la te d inju n ct io n ). ti o n. F o r e xa m pl e, a t l ea stf o uro fthe na m ed cl as s pl ainti ff s, i ncl ud i ng Gao, h ave re pla ced thei r ro of s. A r ei nspecti on would se rv e abso l utel y no purpose f orthi s s ubcl ass ofpl ai nti ff s. I t i s v er y l i kely th at m any o ther s hav e 8 already had thei r ro of s r epai re d usi ng the pro ceeds of thei r i n su ra nce paym ents. In shor t, the propos ed i nj unctio n is n otm er ely in ap p ro p ria te , i t is br oa d ly im p ra c tic al. T h er e is a se c on d fu n d a m e n t a l rea so n w h y t h is c as e is u n su ita b le for cla ss ce rt ifica tio n : A n inju n c tio n w ou ld n o tp r o v i d e “ fi n a l ” r e l i e fa s r e q u i r ed b y R u l e 2 3 (b ) ( 2 )
. An i nj uncti on i s no t a fi nalr em edy i fi t would m er ely l ay ane vi den ti ar y f o unda ti o n fo r s ubs eque ntde te r m i na ti o ns of liab ility

. S e eAn dre ws v. Che vy Chas eBank, 5 4 5 F
. 3 d 5 7 0, 57 3 (7th C i r . 2 00 8); Boli n v . Se ars , Roe b uc k & C o. , 23 1 F
. 3d 970, 97 8 ( 5th Ci r. 20 00) ( cl ass cer ti fi cati on notper m i tte d w here cl ass m em b er s “have no thi ng to ga i n fro m an i nj u n cti on, and the decl ar ato ryr el i eftheyse ek ser ves onl y to f aci l i tat e the aw ar d o f dam age s”)
. A s w e have20 N o. 09

- 1725

ex p lain ed , th e pla in tiffs h av e no in d ep en d en tly ac tio n ab le cl a i m b a s e d o n S t a t e F a r m’ s f a i l u r e t o u s e a u n i f o r m a nd ob j ec tiv e s t an d ar d for e va lu at in g h ail d am ag e. P ro p er ly und er sto od, the co ntra ct a nd to rtcause s o fact i on here ar e s tr ai ghtf or w ar d cl ai m s f orunderpaym ent o f i n su ra nce be nefi ts. A s s uch, S tat e F ar m ’ s l i abi l i ty cannot b e d ete rm i ned on a cl ass - w i de basi s, but i nstea d re quir es i nd i vi du al i zed f actuali n q u i ri es i nto the m er i ts of each p oli cyh older’s claim

. Far from being fi na l reli ef, a cl as s- wi de r o o fr eins pec ti o n wo ul d o nl y i ni ti at e th o usa nds o fi ndi vi dual i ze d pr o ce eding s to de te r m i ne b re ac h an d d am ag es . S e eAn dre ws , 545 F. 3d at 577. Se en in t h is ligh t, th e c on te m p la t e d i nj u n c tio n w ou ld ess enti al l y hav e the effec t ofshi fti ng the burden t o St ate Far m to pro ve el em en ts o f the pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s. I t g oes w i thout say i ng tha t no pl ai nti ffi s enti tl ed to r eco ver e x c ep t o n p ro of of b re ac h an d d am ag e. Se e, e . g. , Be rkel & C o. C ontract ors, Inc. v. Pa lm & Assocs
. , Inc. , 814 N
. E.2 d 649, 6 5 5 ( I n d

. C t
. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( t o p r e v a i lo n c o nt r a c tc l a i m, pl aint i ffmustpr o ve “ th e ex i st en ce o fa c o nt r ac t, the d e f e n d an t’s br ea c h th er eo f, an d d am ag es ”); Fogel v. Zell, 221 F. 3d 95 5, 960 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( as fund am ental pr i nc i pl e, to rt l i ab i l i tyr equi r es pr o o fo fha r m )
. Or der i ng St at e F ar m to rein sp ec t ro ofs on a c las s- w id e b as is am ounts to an o rderr equi ring the i nsurerto establi sh w hetheri t underpai d a n y of i ts pol i cyhol ders, and i fso , byho w m uch

. The pla i nti ff s ar gue that disa l l owing an i nj uncti on cl ass unde r Rul e 23(b)(2 ) woul d b e i nc o ns i st en t wi th All e n v . Int e r nat i onal Tr uc k & E ng ine Corp. , 358 F.3d 469 (7th C ir.N o. 09

- 1725 21 2004 )
. There , a gr oup ofe m p loy ees sued the i r em plo yer f orr aci aldi scr i m i nati on a nd so ught bo th i nj uncti ve reli ef and da m ages. W e held t h at certifi cation of a Rule 23(b) ( 2) cl ass f ori nj unct i ve re l i efwas appropri ate ev eni fthe rel at ed damag e cl ai m s r equi r ed su bs eque nt in d ivid u al a dj u d ica tio n . 358 F.3 d at47 0. U n like th is case , however, the re m edi es soughtbythe Al l e n p la i nti f f s we r e de s i g ne d t o c ur e t wo di s t i nc ti nj ur i e s : p a st an d fu t u r e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . M on et ar y d am ag es , i f aw ar ded , would com pensate the e m plo yee s for the di sc rim in at ion th e y h ad alre ad y s u ffer ed ; d am ag es w ou ld pr ovi de a fi nalr etr ospect i ve rem ed y for t hati nj u r y . An i nj unc ti o n, on the o th erha nd, woul d r equi r e th e empl o y ert o c ea se i ts di sc r i m i na to r y c o nduc t, pr o vi di ng a fin al pro spect ive re m edy f oro ngoing and future discrim ination. H er e , in cont rast, the p lai nt iffs have su ffered only one cogn izable injury

— St ate Fa rm ’ s a l l ege d u n d e r p a y me n to fth e i r h a i l

- d a ma g e c l a i ms

— and a r etrospecti ve dam age s r em edy would pro vi de fi nal, adequate r e l i e ff o r th i s s i n g u l a r h a r m. The pl ai nt i ff s al so c o nt en d tha t th ei r c l ai m f o r i nj uncti ve re l i efi s a nal og ous t o “m edi calm oni tor i ng” i nj unctions i n cl ass act i ons bro ught bysm oke rs ag ai nst tob acco co m panie s. In thi s c ontext, o therci rcui ts have i nd i cate d that Rul e 2 3( b) ( 2) cer ti fi cati on m ay be ap propr i at e wher e th e acti o n s ee k s ani nj unc ti o n r equi r i ng the defendant to fund a m edi cal

- m oni toring prog ra m fo r de te ct i ngthe o ns eto fl at en t di se as e i n the pl aint if f c las s. Se eB ar ne s v. Am
. Toba cc o Co. , 161 F. 3d 127, 14 2- 43 ( 3d Cir
. 19 98) ( i m pli ci tl y s ugges ti ng tha t a co u rt -ordered m e di c a l

- mon i t o r i ngp r o g r a m co ul d b e c ha r a c t e r i z e d a s22 N o. 09

- 1725

N ot al l f orm s ofm edical m onit oring are equit able i n nature, 9 and cour t s h a ve wa r ne d tha tc e r t i fi c a t i onun de r Rul e 2 3 ( b) ( 2) i s i nappr opr i at e i fthe injun cti on i s a “di s gui s ed r eques tf or com pensatory dam ages . ” B ar nes v. A m . Tobacco C o. , 161 F. 3d 127, 1 3 1 (3d C ir . 19 9 8 ); se e al so D ay v. N LO , Inc. , 144 F. R
. D
. 330, 335- 36 (S.D . O h i o 19 9 2 ), re v’d on o t hergr ounds , 5 F. 3d 154 ( 6th Cir

. 1 9 9 3 ). Fo r exa m p le, a co u rt ord er req u iring a d efend an t to pay a pla i nt i ffa s um ofm on e y f orthe pu r po s e o fm e di c al m onit oring i s es se nti all y an aw ard of dam ages and the ref ore c a n n o tb e a w a r d e d i n a R u l e 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) p r o c e e d i n g . T h e s a me (co n tin u ed ...) fi nalinj uncti ve re l i ef, but ult i m ate l y denying ce rt i fi cati on u n d e r R u le 2 3(b )(2) on oth er gro u n d s); B o ug hto n v . Co tter Corp
. , 65 F. 3d 823, 82 7 (10th C i r . 1 99 5) ( i ndi ca ting R u le 2 3(b )(2) ce rt ifica tio n for a m ed i c a l -m on ito rin g c laim m ay be lega lly p er m iss ible ). Th e p lain tiffs m ain ta in that these m edi cal

- m oni tor i ng ca ses dem onst ra te that a Rule 23(b) ( 2) cl ass m ay b e cert i fi ed eve n i fthe re qu ested i njun ction w il l not prov ide tru ly fi na l reli ef. Because the i nj unction they s eekwould onl y a sse ss, not com p en sate, their hail d am age, the p lai nt iffs com p are i t t o a med i c a l

- mon i t o r i ng i nj un c t i o n a nd i ns i s t i t i s l i kew i se suffi ci entl y fi nalto sa ti sfy the r equire m en ts of R ule 23(b)(2). Thi s ar g um en t m i ss es the m ar k

. A m edi ca l

- m o ni to r i ng i nj unc ti o n i s des i g ne d to r el i ev e cl as s pl aint i ff s o fthe pr o spe ct i ve c o sts a ss o ci at ed wi thmedi ca ls upe r vi si o n. B a rnes , 1 6 1 F
. 3 d a t1 3 9
. In thi s s e ns e , iti s a fi na lr e med y b ec au se it p er m an en tly defr ays futu re cos ts ofm edi cal su p ervis ion
. In con trast, the inj un ction th e plaintiff s 9N o. 09

- 1725 23

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 9 can be s aid f or a c ourt ord er r equiri ng the defendan t t o pay the pl ai nt i ff s ’ m edi c al e xpe ns es di re c t l y. How eve r, i fthe c our te s t abl i s he s i t s own m edi c al

- m oni t or i ng pr ogr am m ana ge d by cou r t
- a ppo i nt e d t r us t e e s , the r e m e dy c ou l d the n be characte ri z ed as i njunct ive even i fthe def endan ts are req u ir ed to p a y for th e p ro g ra m . S ee Barn es , 161 F. 3d at 131- 32. re quest her e would notp er f or m any pros pecti ve functi on a t a l l ; i t i s desi gned to as ses s pastpro pertydam age f orpurposes o fdeter m i ni ng lia b i l i ty f ori nd i vi du alr etr ospecti ve com pensato rym onet ar y r em edi es. In shor t, the pl ai nti ff s a re notr eal l y inter est ed i n fi nal p rospe ct i veequ itabl e r el i efatal l ; theyar e s i ngul ar l y focuse d o n r ec o ve r i nga r et r o spe ct i ve d am ag es r emedy, a nd R ule 23(b)(3), not (b)(2) , gov erns certification of a dam age s cl ass . Befo re co ncl ud i n g, w e o fferan obser vati on about an an o m aly i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s cl as s- ce r ti fi ca ti o n order. The j ud ge sai d he w oul d use the Rule 23 ( b) ( 2) pro ceedi ng to ass ess St ate Far m ’ s “l i abi l i ty” on the d am ages cl ai m s. Per haps by thi s the j u dge m eant that he i ntended to use the Rul e 2 3(b)(2 ) cl ass pro ceedi ng to adj ud i cate only tho se com m on issu es p e rtaining to State Farm ’s l i abi l i ty f or bre ach of contr act and b ad f ai th, w hi le reser vi ng the m or e cl ai m ant- speci fi c i ssues

— such a s th e cal cul at ion o fdam age s

— f o r s ub s e qu e nti nd i v i du a la dj ud i cati on. H owever, a s w e hav e e xplained, Rule 23 ( b) ( 2) govern s class claim s for fi na l inj un c t iv e or d eclaratory r e l i e fa n d i s n o ta p p r o p r i a t e l y i n v o k e d f o r a dj u d i c a t i ng com m on issu es in an ac tion for da m ages . A dam age s24 N o. 09

- 1725 cl ass m ay be c er ti fi ed und erRule 23 ( b) ( 3) and part i cul ar iss u es id en tifie d for re so lu tio n on a c las s-w i d e b as is pu rs uant to Rule 23( c )(4) . F ED . R. C IV . P. 23 ( c) ( 4) ( “W hen appropri ate , an a cti on m ay be b ro u gh t o r m ai ntai ned as a c las s a c tio n w ith res p ec t t o p ar tic u lar iss u es .” )
. O r , in an appropr i ate case, a Rul e 2 3( b) ( 2) cl ass and a Rule 23 (b ) ( 3) cl ass m ay be c er ti fi ed w here ther e i s a re al basi s f or both dam age s and a n equi tabl e re m ed y. Se ePe l l a Corp. v. Sa l tzm an , 606 F.3d 3 9 1, 392-93 (7th Cir. 2010 )
. A s we have expla i ned, thati s not th e ca se here ; ne i the r R ul e 2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) n o r R ul e 2 3 ( c ) ( 4 ) i s i mpl i c a t e d. F o r the f o r e g o i ng r e a s o ns , w e R EV ER S E a nd R EMA ND w i th i nstr ucti ons to decert i fy the Rul e 2 3( b) ( 2) cl ass .

2- 14- 11