Opinion ID: 1869498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Class Certification Order

Text: From my reading of the class certification order, I believe that the circuit court properly considered the conflict of laws argument GM presented to the court and found that the issues of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over individual issues of law and fact. The court determined from the evidence presented at the class-certification hearing that Bryant alleges a product defect that is present at the time of manufacture on all of a set of vehicles defined in the class definition. Similarly, all class members received identical express warranties from GM, and all class members seek the same warranty remedies. Bryant presented extensive documentation of initial reports to GM of a potential defect, GM's testing and verification of the alleged product defect, and procedures by which GM addressed the alleged defect with respect to vehicles equipped with manual transmissions, while at the same time electing not to address the alleged defect with respect to vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. Specifically, the circuit court stated that it saw nothing to convince it that this alleged defect is not present in all class vehicles, or that it doesn't occur or manifest itself each time a class vehicle is used. With respect to potential state-law variations, the vast majority relate to defenses raised by GM regarding the recovery of individual members, such as: application of statutes of limitations; fraud-related materiality and reliance; individual knowledge of parking brake defect; whether an individual's parking brake has been repaired under warranty; notice of warranty breach; expiration of factory warranty based on mileage; and comparative fault. The mere fact that individual issues and defenses may be raised by a company regarding the recovery of individual members cannot defeat a class certification where there are common questions concerning the defendant's alleged wrongdoing which must be resolved for all class members. Lenders Title Co. v. Chandler, supra ; SEECO Inc. v. Hales, 330 Ark. 402, 954 S.W.2d 234 (1997). Here, the circuit court concluded that the individual determinations relating to recovery or damages . . . pale in comparison to the common issues surrounding GM's allegedly defectively designed parking brake and cover up to avoid paying warranty claims. Based on the circuit court's extensive review of the evidence and its thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is clear that the circuit court acted within its discretion in certifying the class of plaintiffs as defined in the court's order. For these reasons, I concur with the majority's opinion that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Bryant has met the requirements of Rule 23; likewise, I would affirm the circuit court's order of class certification. CORBIN, J., joins this concurrence.