Ferrell v. Allstate Insurance
2008 NMSC 042, 188 P.3d 1156, 144 N.M. 405 (2008)
Rule of Law:
For multi-state class actions, an actual conflict between states' laws sufficient to preclude application of forum law requires proof of clearly established, plainly contradictory law, not merely hypothetical conflicts or unsettled foreign appellate precedent; if such a conflict exists in a multi-state contract class action, New Mexico courts should apply the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Additionally, forum-selection clauses must be raised as venue defenses in the first responsive pleading or they are waived.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are Allstate insureds who contend Allstate is liable for breach of contract for failing to include installment fees, charged for monthly payments, in the total premium calculation.
- Allstate counters that the installment fees are not part of the premium, but rather a charge for opting to pay premiums in installments instead of a lump sum.
- Plaintiffs initially requested certification of a nationwide class but later narrowed the proposed class to fifteen states, including New Mexico.
- The district court certified a class of thirteen states, finding no conflict among their laws that would prevent the application of New Mexico law.
- The district court declined to certify plaintiffs from Hawaii or Washington because insurance policies issued in those states contained specific information about installment fees.
- Some class member policies, issued in certain states, contained forum-selection clauses designating the state where the insured entered into the policy as the forum for disputes.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company in New Mexico district court, alleging breach of contract.
- The district court certified a multi-state class of plaintiffs from thirteen states, concluding there was no conflict among their laws and applying New Mexico law.
- The district court declined to certify plaintiffs from Hawaii and Washington due to policy differences in those states.
- Allstate appealed the class certification to the New Mexico Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 1-023(F) NMRA.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the laws of the thirteen states and determined they potentially conflicted due to unresolved ambiguities.
- Based on the potential conflicts, the Court of Appeals concluded it would be inappropriate to apply New Mexico law to the entire multi-state class.
- The Court of Appeals performed a conflict-of-laws analysis, deciding that the law of the state where each insurance contract was entered would apply, rendering the case unmanageable.
- The Court of Appeals decertified the class with respect to all out-of-state class members, affirming certification only for New Mexico class members, and remanded the case to the district court.
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What standard defines an "actual conflict" between states' laws such that application of forum law is inappropriate for a multi-state class action, and how should a defense based on a forum-selection clause be raised in such an action?
Opinions:
Majority - Bosson, Justice
No, an "actual conflict" between states' laws, precluding the application of forum law in a multi-state class action, is not established by mere hypothetical differences or a lack of foreign appellate precedent; rather, it requires proof of clearly established, plainly contradictory law. Additionally, a defense based on a forum-selection clause must be raised as a venue defense under Rule 1-012(B)(3) NMRA in a defendant's first responsive pleading or it is waived. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' finding of an actual conflict, which was based on unresolved ambiguities in each state's law and the potential for different results. Citing Berry v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co. and Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, the Court held that the party opposing class certification bears the burden of affirmatively proving an actual conflict with "clearly established, plainly contradictory law." Speculation about how laws could produce different results or the absence of foreign appellate precedent is insufficient to establish an actual conflict. The district court's decision to apply New Mexico law, given the absence of a demonstrated, material conflict and the sufficient uniformity of the laws, was therefore proper. Proactively addressing choice-of-law, the Court determined that if an actual conflict were found in multi-state contract class actions, New Mexico courts should depart from the rigid, mechanical application of the Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws (specifically, the "place of contracting" rule). The Restatement (First) is deemed ill-suited for the complexities of multi-state class actions as it would often render them unmanageable. Instead, the Court adopted the more flexible Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws' "most significant relationship" test, which focuses on the content of competing laws and public policies. Regarding forum-selection clauses, the Court concluded that they are properly treated as venue defenses under Rule 1-012(B)(3) NMRA, aligning with the analysis from Sucampo Pharm., Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc. This approach promotes judicial efficiency by requiring defendants to raise such a defense in their first responsive pleading, preventing the waste of judicial resources on class certification analysis if the case would ultimately be dismissed for improper venue. Since Allstate failed to raise the forum-selection clause defense in its first responsive pleading or any other prior motion, it waived the defense. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decertification of out-of-state class members, affirmed the district court's class certification, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for identifying actual legal conflicts in multi-state class actions in New Mexico, making it less burdensome for plaintiffs to achieve certification by placing a higher burden on defendants to prove actual, not hypothetical, conflicts. It also marks a critical shift in New Mexico's choice-of-law jurisprudence for multi-state contract class actions, moving from the rigid Restatement (First) to the more flexible, policy-oriented Restatement (Second). The ruling on forum-selection clauses enhances judicial efficiency by requiring early assertion of venue defenses, preventing prolonged litigation over class certification that could be rendered moot by a late-raised venue challenge. This decision could encourage more multi-state class action filings in New Mexico by providing a clearer path to certification and a more predictable choice-of-law framework when conflicts are identified.
