Article III continues to grab headlines in class action litigation as one of the most potent barriers to class certification. With increasing frequency, courts are asking whether class representatives — and the class members they seek to represent — have suffered injuries that are sufficient to satisfy the most fundamental test of Article III standing. Class plaintiffs are being tossed out of court with ever increasing frequency because their damage claims are simply too tenuous to pass constitutional muster.
Now, an Ohio court has weighed in on this issue. In Andrews v. Nationwide Ins. Co., Case No. CV-11-756463 (McMonagle, J.), the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County dismissed class claims — on a Rule 12(B)(6) motion — brought by life insurance customers because it found the alleged injury was simply too speculative to satisfy the requirements of Article III.
To read the full article, including guidance on the lessons emerging from the Andrews case, click here.
Class of Ohio insureds lacks standing because of speculative injuries
