- 16 -
The second argument in respondent’s memorandum is
that there is no allegation in the complaint filed in
Campbell v. State Farm of any physical injuries as a
result of the insurer’s breach of contract and, thus, no
allegation of “a direct link between personal injuries
and the recovery of damages, as required by Schleier
v. Commissioner [sic], 515 U.S. 323 (1995)”. As discussed
above, however, the complaint expressly limits membership
in the class of plaintiffs to persons who had sustained
injury through the fault of an uninsured and/or
underinsured motorist, and who had not been paid the
uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage limits
under one or more automobile liability insurance policies
issued by State Farm. In this situation, it would seem
that the measure of damages of each class member in
Campbell v. State Farm would take into account his or
her unpaid tort claims. In any event, we cannot fully
evaluate the allegations of the complaint filed in
Campbell v. State Farm and the settlement of that case
without reviewing the settlement agreement and other
documents from the case, such as the proof of claim
questionnaire and the release petitioner submitted.
The third argument in respondent’s memorandum is that
there is no allocation of the settlement payment to tort
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011