NHCaseLaw.com

Before the court is one of several similar lawsuits concerning the alleged failure of numerous insurance companies to refund unearned insurance premiums to their clients. Sharon Dunn and Robin Preve (the "plaintiffs") are purchasers of credit life and credit disability insurance issued by American Heritage Life Insurance Company ("the defendant" or "AHL"), a credit insurer. The plaintiffs have brought an action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) restitution; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) conversion; and (6) equitable relief including an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust, and an order requiring AHL to implement controls to assure the prompt refund of unearned premiums. The plaintiffs now move for class certification as to Count I (Breach of Contract), contending that this case satisfies the requirements of Superior Court Rule 27-A. The defendant objects. Upon review of the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.

Presently before the Court is the plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, in which the plaintiff argues that she has satisfied argues that she has satisfied the Rule 27-A certification requirements of numerosity, commonality/predominance, typicality, adequacy, superiority, and adequacy of counsel. The defendant objects. The pertinent facts have already been summarized by the Court in the Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Carlisle v. St. Mary's Credit Union, Hillsborough Cty. Super. Ct. North, No. 05-C-0090, (Nov. 10, 2005) (Order, Barry J.). For the reasons stated in this order, the plaintiff's motion to certify the class is granted.

The nine named plaintiffs bring this proposed class action to obtain redress for alleged deceptive practices engaged in by the defendants in connection with the financing of used cars purchased by them from defendant G.W.M., Inc., doing business as the Auto-torium (hereinafter “Auto-torium”). The other named defendants are six finance companies which took assignments from Auto-torium of automobile retail installment sales contracts executed by plaintiffs and putative members of the class. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. After carefully considering the voluminous filings submitted by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied.