> >
Case Name | Wall Units, Inc. v. SCIF | |
---|---|---|
Date | 06/09/2008 | |
Note | [Unpublished] The trial court used proper legal criteria and assumptions in denying class certification when it focused on the absence of 'common questions of law or fact.' | |
Citation | B200331 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 33822008 CA |
Plaintiff Wall Units, Inc. (Wall Units) pursued a class action lawsuit against defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for allegedly misreporting the loss experience in workers' compensation insurance claims. Following further proceedings in the trial court, in February of 2007, Wall Units moved for certification of a class of employer plaintiffs who had "declared noncompensable" claims that SCIF had misreported. )*fn2 The new class definition framed by Wall Units after our prior opinion in 2006 encompassed all three prongs of the "declared non-compensable" definition. SCIF first learned of the Wiley claim on July 16, 1991, and denied the claim on October 15, 1992. Wall Units complains that the trial court's order denying class certification struck eight paragraphs in a supporting declaration provided by Wall Units.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.