COVID-19 Resources for Lawyers
Featured Guests
Matthew Berkowitz

Matthew D. Berkowitz is Member at Carr Maloney, P.C. in Washington, D.C. with significant class action experience at the...

Brian O’Shea

Brian O’Shea is a litigation attorney who focuses his practice on employment and labor law, professional malpractice, and complex...

Samantha Lewis

Samantha Lewis focuses her practice on professional liability, Directors’ and Officers’ liability, and employment and labor law. Prior to...

Your Host
John Czuba

John Czuba has 28 years experience in the publishing industry. Since 1994 he has worked for the AM Best,...

Episode Notes

Attorneys Matthew Berkowitz, Brian O’Shea and Samantha Lewis from the law firm Carr Maloney P.C. in Washington, D.C. address class action settlements and impact on claims.

Special thanks to our sponsor, AM Best CompanyBest’s Recommended Insurance Attorneys & Adjusters, including Expert Service Providers.


The Insurance Law Podcast

The Insurance Impact of Class Action Settlements





Intro: This is the Insurance Law Podcast, brought to you by Best’s Recommended Insurance Attorneys.


John Czuba: Welcome to The Insurance Law Podcast, the broadcast about timely and important legal issues affecting the insurance industry. I’m John Czuba, Managing Editor of Best’s Recommended Insurance Attorneys. We’re pleased to have with us today attorneys Matthew Berkowitz, Brian O’Shea, and Samantha Lewis from the law firm Carr Maloney in Washington, D.C.


Matt is a member of the firm with significant class action experience, regularly representing national, regional, local corporations, employers, retailers, manufacturers, automobile dealerships, credit reporting agencies, financial institutions, debt collection agencies, law firms among others, in class action under federal and state laws.


Associate attorney, Brian O’Shea, has successfully defended class action lawsuits involving mass torts, products liability, defective design and warranty claims, cybersecurity and data breach, and consumer protection claims.


And Associate attorney, Samantha Lewis, focuses her practice on professional liability, directors’ and officers’ liability in employment and labor law.


We’re very pleased to have you with us today.


Matthew Berkowitz: Thank you.


Brian O’Shea: Thank you.


John Czuba: Today’s discussion is going to be on class action settlements and for our first question; are there any significant differences between class action settlements and regular settlements?


Matthew Berkowitz: This is Matt. As many people know, typically settlement agreements between a standard plaintiff and defendant is very much a private contract. It’s very straightforward and it’s a private contract. We generally do not need court approval. Class actions are a different beast because you’re dealing with the public and you are dealing with absent class members and as such, because they are absent class members, the courts take an active role in scrutinizing the settlements. In order for a settlement to occur in a class action, there needs to be a court approval and a court approval is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23E. Really, the question, what the court is looking for is whether the settlement, both in terms of procedure and substance, is fair, adequate, and reasonable and that could be both in terms of monetary relief awarded, be it in the form of the attorney’s fees and it certainly can be in the form of non-monetary relief. It also looks at how absent class members are getting noticed in terms of procedural mechanism. Then, a few years ago, there were some amendments and a few years ago, there would be enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act, also known as CAFA.


Samantha Lewis: With respect to the 2018 amendments to Rule 23, they primarily affect noted settlement and appeal. With respect to settlement, Rule 23 requires an analysis of four factors to determine whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. These factors include the adequacy of representation by class representatives and class counsel, whether settlement negotiations were at arm’s length, the adequacy of relief provided to the class, and the equity of treatment of class members relative to one another.


With respect to CAFA, litigants are required to provide notice of class action settlements to the United States Department of Justice, and DOJ may object to settlements that they believe are unfair, inequitable to unnamed class members.


Historically, however, DOJ has rarely intervened but beginning in 2018 it has begun to take a more aggressive stance and issued multiple statements of interest to the presiding courts at issue.


John Czuba: Brian, can you discuss recent cases where the court has applied increased scrutiny to a class action settlement?


Brian O’Shea: There were a few notable cases recently. Fairly recently there was the Subway class action litigation over their foot-long sandwiches. The court did not approve the settlement because, while Subway agreed to pay out some money, the fees that were going to class counsel, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, were not adequate when compared to the sandwich vouchers that the class plaintiffs received. The court found that that was not fair and did not approve the settlement.


Also, fairly recently, there was a notable class action case involving Yahoo! dealing with a data breach involving about three billion Yahoo! users. Yahoo! agreed to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve the case. However, the court initially did not approve the settlement because Yahoo! did not agree to take specific steps regarding their data security and data management practices to make sure that this type of data breach does not happen again. And then, there was Frank v. Gaos as well, which was a recent case. I think Sam is going to take.




Samantha Lewis: Sure, that’s also known as the Google case. It was a class action settlement in the form of a cy pres settlement. Cy pres settlements in class actions are those that distribute all or part of the monetary relief to public interests or charitable recipients instead of class members. Many have challenged the legitimacy of cy pres settlements in providing adequate relief. The Supreme Court heard the issue but they sidestepped on such questions.


John Czuba: And Brian, can you comment a little bit on the Yahoo! case?


Brian O’Shea: There were three billion users who were affected by a data breach involving Yahoo! Yahoo! agreed to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars eventually, but initially, the settlement was not approved, as I said, because Yahoo! did not agree to take specific steps regarding their data management practices and data security.


John Czuba: And are there any noteworthy current settlements with increased scrutiny?


Brian O’Shea: There are. If you’ve been watching the news lately, anyone out there I’m sure has heard about the Equifax settlement. Equifax has agreed to pay out about $380 million to resolve this case against them and the idea was that class plaintiffs who filed claims could get about a $125 each or elect ongoing credit monitoring for free; however, millions of people have made claims for monetary relief. And now, the result is likely to be that class plaintiffs who made such claims will get about cents on the dollar compared to the $125 they would have gotten before. There is a fairness hearing that is set for December in this case, so it is yet to be seen whether the court will actually approve the settlement.


John Czuba: So you all have addressed some recent key decisions and cases. In light of these cases, what are some important considerations for our audience when entering into class action settlements?


Matthew Berkowitz: This is Matt and I’ll just start. It comes back to what we said at the outset is that going into a settlement, you have to be aware that you’re going to need court approval. So you’re going to have to be aware that the court is looking to make sure that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that could be in terms of making sure that there’s enough — you could say money on the table to fairly compensate the plaintiffs. You also need to be aware that in a class action settlement people can opt out if the money is not sufficient. Also going to have to be aware that there are certain notice requirements and that the settlements are going to take time.


So this isn’t necessarily a very private agreement that could be resolved within a couple of weeks and money distributed in a couple of weeks or a settlement check in a week or two. This is something that requires a fairness hearing. It requires a hearing. It requires briefing. It requires notice to absent class members of their rights to opt out of the class, and then certainly the court to approve and as Sam mentioned earlier, the Attorney General, as well as DOJ from different states to have the opportunity to object to it, and then I think Brian had a couple of points as well.


Brian O’Shea: Well, yeah, in addition to the adequacy of the money, which is always important; as happened in the Yahoo! case, it’s important for anyone resolving a class action to consider agreeing to take specific steps in order to redress the claim. So Yahoo! needed to take specific steps regarding data security and other — and Equifax has agreed to take similar steps. So the non-monetary relief is an important consideration as well.


Samantha Lewis: Going off of that, it’s important to ensure that the class action settlement negotiations were at arm’s length. Many commentators and legal analysts out there suggest utilizing a third-party mediator to avoid any potential bias amongst the parties.


John Czuba: Okay, thanks very much, and what’s the impact on the defendant’s insurer as part of the settlement?


Matthew Berkowitz: It’s a good question and that kind of goes a little bit of what we’re talking about as far as court approval. Typically defendant and the insurance company, the goal, often, is to pay as little as possible. Obviously, that’s still the goal as part of a class action settlement, but because the court is going to be scrutinizing, often the insurance company as well as the defendant is going to have to make sure that the settlement is adequate.




Recently, I had a case where it was a great day for my client and they were effectively paying — I don’t want to say “peanuts”, but it was a very good settlement we entered into. We had a lot of defenses. But what happened was it went before the court and the Attorney General had intervened and called into question whether it was adequate in terms of monetary relief because it could be seen that certain plaintiffs were getting pennies on the dollar.


So what could happen on a rejected settlement is you’re now spending money briefing the issue, sending out notices to class members, and it gets rejected. You’re now incurring defense costs when that could have been going to settlement, and that settlement then could get overturned by a court and then you wind up having to litigate it and wind up spending more money.


The other issue is that if the money is not adequate, and that could be a long term cost for the insurance company that is going to — the case would continue when the hope was it was going to settle.


The other problem is that, as Brian was alluding to in the Equifax case, is that as punitive class members are seeing that they are only going to get pennies on the dollar or a very low award, they have the option of opting out of the class and bringing their own claim individually.


So if the overall pool of money is low and people are aware that it’s low and they can tell that their share is going to be insignificant, they may choose to opt out and then bring individual claims.


And I think the last thing that insurance company wants is to settle a matter which is hoping to be final and resolve this in full and the next thing they know, they have 100, 200, 300 class members opting out and bringing 300 individual suites. So that is not necessarily guarding against the risks that it was hoping to when it entered into a settlement.


So I guess the moral of the story is, going back to that first question and the last question kind of both ends, that because it requires court approval, because it’s got to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, you’re sometimes looking to make sure that the monetary relief is not necessarily what you think it to be your best day today but what is it going to be your best day six months or a year from now in fully resolving the class action with finality.


John Czuba: You’ve just listened to attorneys Matthew Berkowitz, Brian O’Shea, and Samantha Lewis from the law firm Carr Maloney in Washington, D.C., and special thanks to today’s producer, Frank Vowinkel.


And thank you all for joining us for The Insurance Law Podcast. To subscribe to this audio program, go to our web page If you have any suggestions for a future topic regarding an insurance law case or issue, please email us at [email protected].


I’m John Czuba, and now this message.




Outro: Best’s Insurance Professionals and Claims Resource is the top website for locating qualified professionals and need to know insurance information for the claims market, brought to you by A.M. Best, the world leader in insurance industry information. Visit

Brought to You by

Notify me when there’s a new episode!

Episode Details
Published: September 3, 2019
Podcast: Best's Insurance Law Podcast
Category: Best Legal Practices
Best's Insurance Law Podcast

Best's Insurance Law Podcast features discussions with leading insurance attorneys about timely industry issues.

Listen & Subscribe
Recent Episodes
Cumis Counsel Selection and Impact on Claims

Attorney addresses circumstances that trigger an insurer's obligation to provide cumis counsel in cases.

“Reverse Reptile:” How Defense Counsel Are Turning the Tables 

Expert Service Provider discusses how insurance companies can best be prepared for reptile attacks in litigation.

Claims Impact of Michigan No-Fault Law Reformation

Adjuster addresses changes to the Michigan no-fault insurance law and impact on claims and risk managers.

How the COVID-19 Crisis Creates an Environment for Fraudulent Insurance Claims

Adjuster discusses COVID-19 triggering fraudulent claims.

How COVID-19 is Changing Insurance Claims Handling and Inspections

Senior Forensic Mechanical Engineer addresses how COVID-19 has changed claims handling now and for the future.

How COVID-19 will Impact the Return to Workplace Environment

Attorney addresses COVID-19 return to work challenges.