Bash v. Firstmark Standard Life Insurance
861 F.2d 159 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appeal from a final judgment approving a class-action settlement is limited to a review of the reasonableness of the settlement itself and cannot be used to challenge the merits of prior, non-final interlocutory orders that led to the settlement.
Facts:
- Standard Life Insurance Company of Indiana (Standard) maintained a defined-benefits pension plan for its employees.
- The plan was terminated, and the 53 participants and beneficiaries were paid their accrued benefits, totaling approximately $1.2 million.
- After the benefits were paid out, a surplus of approximately $1 million remained in the plan's assets.
- The plan's trustee transferred this $1 million surplus to the employer, Standard, rather than distributing it to the plan participants.
- Former employees, who were members of the plan, believed this surplus should have been distributed to them.
Procedural Posture:
- Four named plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jerry Williams, filed a class-action suit in federal district court against Standard Life and other defendants.
- The district court certified the case as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' main claim for the pension plan's surplus assets.
- The plaintiffs' motion to make the summary judgment order immediately appealable was denied by the district court.
- During the trial on the remaining claims, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement for $15,000.
- Unnamed class members O’Brien and Vogt objected to the proposed settlement.
- The district court held a fairness hearing and entered a final judgment approving the settlement.
- Objectors O'Brien and Vogt, represented by Williams, appealed the final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appeal from a final judgment approving a class-action settlement allow the appellant to challenge the merits of a prior partial summary judgment order, rather than being limited to challenging the reasonableness of the settlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Posner
No. An appeal from a final judgment approving a class action settlement is limited to challenging the reasonableness of the settlement itself. A settlement is an avoidance of adjudication, not an adjudication of the issues; therefore, it cannot be attacked on appeal for having incorrectly resolved the underlying legal issues. The court reasoned that the appellants' attorney, Williams, effectively waived the right to appeal the prior partial summary judgment by entering into a settlement agreement. To preserve the right to appeal the summary judgment, he should have either proceeded to a litigated final judgment or negotiated a settlement that was expressly conditional on the outcome of an appeal of that prior ruling. Since he did neither, the scope of appellate review is confined to whether the district judge abused his discretion in finding the settlement reasonable. Given that the judge's partial summary judgment had dismissed the plaintiffs' primary claims, the modest settlement was eminently reasonable as it reflected the weakened state of their case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the finality of settlements, particularly in the class-action context. It establishes a clear boundary for appellate review, distinguishing between appeals from litigated final judgments, which bring up prior interlocutory rulings, and appeals from consent judgments like settlements. The ruling instructs class-action counsel that if they wish to challenge a dispositive interlocutory order (like summary judgment), they cannot simultaneously enter into an unconditional settlement and then appeal that prior order. This forces a strategic choice: either litigate to the end to preserve appeal rights on all issues or accept that a settlement forecloses challenges to anything but the settlement's own reasonableness.
