(The following story by John Lyon appeared on the Arkansas News website on May 7, 2009.)
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A lawsuit alleging Union Pacific unfairly manipulated families into agreeing to settlements after train crashes cannot proceed as a class-action suit, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The court reversed a Lafayette County circuit judge’s ruling that granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by Arkansas residents Victor Vickers, Robert Udell and James Freeman. The plaintiffs were seeking to sue Union Pacific on behalf of themselves and “all other persons similarly situated.”
Vickers was injured in a collision with a train in 2001, and Freeman was injured in a collision in 1998. Udell is the father of Tracey Udell, who was killed in a 1999 collision.
The plaintiffs allege that shortly after the accidents, Union Pacific contacted them and told them they should not hire lawyers because doing so would be costly and would cause a delay in receiving settlement money.
Through fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, the company persuaded the plaintiffs to agree to settlements that were unfairly low, in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the lawsuit alleges.
Lawyers for Union Pacific have said the railroad company did nothing wrong. The company also objected to class-action certification, saying the allegations were so different that each would have to be considered separately.
The Supreme Court agreed that the plaintiffs’ allegations are not similar enough for a class-action suit.
“The only thing that all of the plaintiffs have in common is that they settled a claim against Union Pacific. In short, there is no one set of operative facts that may or may not have constituted the unauthorized practice of law or a violation of the ADTPA,” Justice Elana Cunnigham Wills wrote in the court’s opinion Thursday.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber wrote that the majority’s opinion was mistakenly based on a determination that the representations allegedly made by Union Pacific were different in each settlement negotiation.
“I submit that appellees are not required to prove, at this stage, that similar representations were made in every settlement negotiation,” Imber wrote. “They have demonstrated … that Union Pacific had developed a consistent pattern and practice for settling claims. This is sufficient for class certification.”