Opinion ID: 1991341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Court Opinion

Text: The opinion states that all prerequisites for certification but one were met. The trial court did not find that a class action would be a fair and efficient method of adjudication, the last of the five prerequisites enumerated in Pa.R. Civ.P. 1702(5). [5] As the trial court saw it, liability on the part of appellee was a foregone conclusion. This followed from its interpretation of the 1983 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., 504 Pa. 218, 470 A.2d 958 (1983). According to the trial court Freeze pronounced liability on the part of the insurance company to pay work loss benefits to estates such as appellant's. The trial court then concluded that [t]he issue in this case is not one of liability. This was seen to reduce the issues in the case to one, damages. As such, it believed the case was not appropriate for class action treatment since it required separate hearings for each member of the class. Consistent with the trial court's interpretation of Freeze, there were findings that there was no risk of varying adjudications due to the mechanical and routine processing of work loss benefits as set forth in the No-Fault Act; Nationwide would not be presented with incompatible standards of conduct; and class members' interests would not be foreclosed or impeded by individual work loss determinations. [6] The trial court also perceived an inconvenience in requiring estates from across the Commonwealth to litigate their claims in Allegheny County  making the forum inconvenient and inappropriate.