Opinion ID: 2175343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Would Compliance with Joinder Statutes be Possible Here?

Text: At the outset it must be noted that the class members' claims could not be joined since the members assert separate causes of action that would not affect all the parties to the action. Viewed under the single occurrence test, [1] each class member has a separate cause of action. The complaint does allege the existence of only one group insurance program providing identical benefits (except as to amount of coverage) to each retired nonunion salaried employee. The complaint also alleges that defendant changed the program at the same time and in the same way with respect to all these retired employees. However, the complaint alleges that the benefits of the insurance program devolved upon these employees as part of their separate employment contracts. Thus, when defendant changed the program, in effect it allegedly breached 5,000 separate contracts thereby creating 5,000 similar, but nevertheless legally distinct, causes of action. Since each cause of action affects only one retired employee, the causes of action may not be joined. For similar reasons, the retired employees could not avail themselves of the party joinder provision [2] of sec. 260.10, Stats., which provides: All persons having an interest in the subject of the action or in obtaining the relief demanded may be joined as plaintiffs. There is no one subject of the action here. The retired employees do not seek to divide a common fund or determine ownership rights to property in which they all claim an interest. Nor do they have an interest in obtaining the relief demanded, since they each seek a separate damages recovery. [3]