Opinion ID: 216737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hickmans.

Text: When Dean and Aimee Hickman purchased a home in Elyria, Ohio in 1999 they also purchased both a lender's title insurance policy and an owner's policy. The Hickmans then refinanced their home in 2001 and again in 2004. The Hickmans purchased a new title insurance policy for each transaction, with First American issuing the 2004 policy. The Hickmans were apparently unaware that they were eligible to receive the refinance discount, and there is no evidence that they requested the discount or submitted documentation to First American establishing that they had previously purchased title insurance. The Hickmans claim that by not providing the discount First American overcharged them $134.40. First American, like Fidelity, files its rates through the Ohio Title Insurance Rating Bureau and is subject to provisions PR-9 and PR-10, which provide the refinance discount of thirty percent when issuing a title insurance policy if some other title insurer has issued a policy for the property in the previous ten years. The Hickmans proposed that the district court certify a class of: All persons who (i) paid for a lender's policy of title insurance issued by defendant First American Title Insurance Company in connection with the refinancing of a residential mortgage loan on property located in Ohio that was completed on or after February 2, 2000; (ii) where the subject property previously had been mortgaged within the applicable look-back period; and (iii) paid more than the discounted reissue or refinance rate for such title insurance. Unlike the Randlemans' proposed class, membership in the Hickmans' class does not turn on an individual's entitlement to receive the discount, but includes all individuals who refinanced a mortgage within the ten-year look-back period. The district court considered the requirements in Rule 23 for certifying a class action and concluded that the Hickmans' proposed class failed to meet the commonality or typicality requirements. Additionally, the district court held that even if the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) were met, common questions did not predominate as required to maintain a class action under Rule 23(b)(3). Thus, the district court denied the motion for class certification.