Objectors to class action settlements often argue that the proposed settlement is really benefiting the plaintiffs’ lawyers and not the class.  It’s less common to see an argument that a settlement is benefiting the named plaintiffs at the expense of the class they are representing.  The Sixth Circuit recently found such a problem, and reversed

Plaintiffs’ lawyers seeking to certify classes against insurance companies are likely to frequently cite the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Young v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nos. 11-5015 et al., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18625 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2012).  Although the opinion does not make it clear, this decision appears to conflict with

The Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a health insurance case that a claim for a declaratory judgment regarding insurance contract interpretation could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) under Wal-Mart v. Dukes, even if the declaratory relief would be a predicate to monetary relief, under which certification was sought under Rule 23(b)(3) but not yet