Opinion ID: 1488007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Class Allegations

Text: Two of the MDL cases ( Gimpelson and Pinney ) assert that no individual issues of injury exist, let alone predominate in this case, because membership in each class is premised only upon purchase or lease of a WHHP without a headset, and the insurers contend this statement disclaims damages for bodily injury. Alleging that there are no individual issues of injury, however, is not the same as stating that no individuals have been injured. In fact, each of the complaints quite clearly alleges the opposite, as outlined above. Nor is it dispositive that the proposed class includes only those purchasers who have not been diagnosed with a brain related tumor or cancer of the eye. Excluding certain classes of injured purchasers does not mean that the putative class has abandoned all claims for damages because of bodily injuries. Although we have held that a class action will rarely be an appropriate device for resolving a personal injury claim, Sw. Refining Co., Inc. v. Bernal, 22 S.W.3d 425, 436 (Tex.2000), the appropriateness of class certification is not at issue here and is not relevant to the duty to defend. See Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Beaver, 466 F.3d 1289, 1295-96 (11th Cir.2006) (finding a duty to defend putative class action under Florida law and noting that [i]f the duty to defend arises in spite of the uncertainty and impracticality of defending wholly meritless individual claims, we think it equally clear that the duty to defend is not defeated by some uncertainty as to the merits of a class certification and [t]he likelihood that a plaintiff will prevail in its covered claims or that a class will be certified does not enter into the calculus). The question is whether the MDL complaints seek damages because of bodily injury, and we conclude that they do. None of the MDL cases was filed in Texas, and none will be tried in Texas. The complaints allege violations of Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Georgia law, respectively. Whether a class will be certified is ultimately a question for the MDL court, not us. [13] Every court that has analyzed in any detail the duty to defend the identical claims in these very cases  including the two federal circuit courts that have reached the issue  has held that such a duty exists. [14] We have repeatedly stressed the importance of uniformity when identical insurance provisions will necessarily be interpreted in various jurisdictions. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819, 824 (Tex. 1997); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. CBI Indus., Inc., 907 S.W.2d 517, 522 (Tex. 1995). Failing to recognize the duty here would mean that Nokia and Samsung  two Texas corporations (as well as any other manufacturer sued by its insurer in a Texas court)  would be deprived of a defense to which parties in other jurisdictions are entitled. We conclude that the MDL cases seek damages because of bodily injury.