Opinion ID: 2169210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Underlying Circuit Court Orders

Text: Having answered the certified questions, in the interests of judicial economy and the need to reach an equitable result we next consider the propriety of the circuit court order that gave rise to these proceedings. Vision Point of Sale, Inc., 226 Ill.2d at 354, 314 Ill.Dec. 778, 875 N.E.2d 1065. In this case, the circuit court denied Bayer's motion for summary judgment, which was premised on the court's belief that De Bouse may have properly pled a consumer fraud cause of action. Denying the motion for summary judgment also allowed the circuit court to certify the foregoing questions, which would conclusively determine whether De Bouse did in fact properly plead a cause of action. In reviewing the circuit court's denial of summary judgment, however, we conclude that De Bouse did not sufficiently plead a consumer fraud cause of action. As the answers to the first and third certified questions demonstrate, in order to prevail De Bouse must prove that she was actually deceived, either directly or indirectly. De Bouse acknowledged in her deposition testimony that before she began taking Baycol she had seen no advertisements for the drug and had no independent knowledge of the drug or its effects. Therefore, she was not directly deceived by Bayer. Nonetheless, De Bouse asserts she can still succeed under a theory of indirect deception, that theory which we acknowledged in answering the third certified question. Bayer again argues that even under a theory of indirect deception, De Bouse has not alleged a cause of action. To resolve this we once again turn to Shannon. Although we recognized a theory of indirect deception in Shannon, we concluded, nonetheless, that the plaintiffs in that case could not prevail. As in this case, the Shannon plaintiffs failed to allege that they were directly deceived. Rather, their claim rested on the siding manufacturer having made deceptive statements in promotional materials that none of the plaintiffs had relied on in purchasing their homes. Nor could the Shannon plaintiffs establish that they had been indirectly deceived. Although they alleged that the siding manufacturer had made fraudulent representations to the builders, and that those misrepresentations had been passed on from the builder to home buyer, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the manufacturer's misrepresentations had been seen by, or deceived, any particular builder. Instead, plaintiffs relied on an alleged deception of unspecified persons having no demonstrated connection to their homes or to themselves. Shannon, 208 Ill.2d at 528, 281 Ill.Dec. 845, 805 N.E.2d 213. Unable to prove either direct or indirect deception, this court, therefore, recognized that the plaintiffs' theory was nothing more than the market theory this court specifically rejected in Oliveira.  Shannon, 208 Ill.2d at 528, 281 Ill.Dec. 845, 805 N.E.2d 213. In this case, De Bouse similarly fails to allege that her particular doctor was actually deceived by any of Bayer's advertisements or statements. What she does allege is the general deception of consumers, the medical community, the health care insurance industry, and the public. As in Shannon, De Bouse alleges the deception of unspecified persons having no demonstrated connection to her. As such, De Bouse's claim is likewise based on the market theory that this court has consistently rejected. Therefore, we hold that the circuit court erred in denying Bayer's motion for summary judgment, and the order to that effect must be vacated. Further, because we hold that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Bayer, we need not address whether Bayer's appeal of the class certification order was filed timely. Class certification is not proper when the putative class representative cannot adequately represent the class sought to be certified. Wheatley v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205, 99 Ill.2d 481, 486, 77 Ill.Dec. 115, 459 N.E.2d 1364 (1984). A representative cannot adequately represent a class when the representative does not state a valid cause of action. Wheatley, 99 Ill.2d at 486, 77 Ill. Dec. 115, 459 N.E.2d 1364. As noted above, De Bouse cannot maintain a cause of action against Bayer. Thus, De Bouse is no longer an appropriate representative of the putative class, and as a result the order of the circuit court certifying the class must also be vacated.