Opinion ID: 2387279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Class Members with Comprehensive Coverage

Text: For his next point, Lee argues that the trial judge erred in concluding that class members who possessed comprehensive automobile coverage policies should be excluded from the class. The auto carriers respond that Lee was not insured under a comprehensive automobile policy and, thus, could not be a class representative for persons insured under a different policy. Lee offers no reasoning or legal authority as to why the trial judge erred on this issue. We have said in the past that we will not do research for an appellant and will affirm a trial judge's decision when the appellant's argument is neither supported by legal authority nor apparent without further research. See Hopper v. Garner, 328 Ark. 516, 944 S.W.2d 540 (1997). We fail to understand, however, how Lee as class representative can raise an issue on behalf of the class which pertains to insurance coverage that he did not have. We believe the trial judge was correct in not countenancing the claim.