Last month State Farm agreed to pay $250 million to settle an ongoing lawsuit in Illinois. The auto insurance company originally agreed to pay millions to end the Halve v. State Farm case in lieu of continuing with court proceedings.
In the lawsuit State Farm was found responsible for using aftermarket vehicle repair crash parts instead of original equipment manufacturer parts in the late 80’s and 90’s.
“…[those who] made a claim for vehicle repairs pursuant to their policy and had non-factory authorized and/or non-OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) “crash parts” installed on or specified for their vehicles or else received monetary compensation determined in relation to the cost of such parts…,” a section of the court document reads.
The court scheduled a Fairness Hearing on December 13, 2018 at the United States District Court Southern District of Illinois before the money was to be paid. Its main purpose allowed the court to continue deliberating on whether or not the agreed upon settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate as well as answer any possible objections.
During the hearing one person, Lisa Marlow of Cocoa, Fla., objected to the agreed settlement amount. She claimed the agreed amount of $250 million was too low and alleged the lawyer’s fees that were to be taken from the settlement were too high.
According to court documents, U.S. Illinois Southern District Judge David Herndon, granted the attorney’s one third of the settlement amount following administration and notice fees totaling $2.1 million being paid.
“…they’ll also receive $6.97 million in litigation costs. That works out to about $89.6 million in fees and costs combined for the 55,000 hours over seven years the attorneys fought the case. The rest of the class would split about $160.3 million after the three class representatives (the three named plaintiffs) receive $25,000 for their additional effort in the case,” according to Herndon from court documents.
The court recently made an order that finalized its settlement to be deemed fair in spite of Marlow’s objection.
“Based on the reasons stated in the record and the following, the Court concludes that under the facts of this case: (1) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (2) Class Counsel’s requested fees and expenses are reasonable and reflect a fair ex ante price for their services. Out of the approximately 4.7 million class members—many of whom received direct, individual notice—only one person, Lisa Marlow, objected to the proposed Settlement and fee request (Doc. 961). The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised in Ms. Marlow’s objection and finds them unpersuasive,” a section of the court document reads.