CIVIL ACTION Himself and Others Similarly Situated : : V
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES BOYLE, SR., on behalf of : CIVIL ACTION himself and others similarly situated : : v. : : PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY : INSURANCE COMPANY : NO. 09-5515 MEMORANDUM OPINION Savage, J. June 7, 2018 Plaintiff, James Boyle, Sr.,1 moves to certify this putative class action filed on behalf of all Pennsylvania policyholders of the defendant automobile insurer Progressive Specialty Insurance Company whose cars were equipped with passive antitheft devices and did not receive the statutorily mandated ten percent discount on their premium for comprehensive coverage for the period from 2005 to 2018. He alleges that Progressive violated the passive antitheft device discount provision of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1799.1. He also contends that Progressive breached the implied terms of its insurance contracts when it failed to give the antitheft device discount as promised in its rate filings with the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner. Opposing certification, Progressive argues that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It also contends that the plaintiff has not met the ascertainability standard because he “cannot identify any reliable sources from which to 1On March 29, 2012, we granted judgment in favor of Progressive as to plaintiff Pamela Lowe- Fenick’s statutory and contractual claims, leaving James Boyle, Sr. as the sole named plaintiff in this action against Progressive. See Doc. No. 97. determine, class-wide, which vehicles are equipped with qualifying antitheft devices,” improperly shifting “ the burden to [Progressive] to identify all insureds whose vehicles are equipped with qualifying antitheft devices.”2 Contrary to Progressive’s contentions, the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, and a class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the issues.
[Show full text]