A Massachusetts federal judge granted class certification this week in a suit alleging Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Co. prematurely terminated rental car benefits for thousands of drivers across the U.S. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy for the District of Massachusetts cleared the way for the plaintiffs to proceed as a unified group on their breach-of-contract claim against the insurer. The plaintiffs purchased Liberty Mutual car insurance policies that contained a provision requiring it to pay for a rental vehicle in the event of an accident and while repairs were performed on the damaged vehicle. The plaintiffs claimed Liberty Mutual adopted a uniform policy of stopping rental benefits prematurely, often after as little as seven days, and said it did not individually determine the "reasonable" amount of time needed for an insured to replace a totaled vehicle. The court granted class certification under Rule 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after determining that the rental car coverage dispute is a class-wide issue and a class action would be the only way for policyholders to challenge Liberty Mutual's alleged practice. Liberty Mutual opposed the plaintiffs' motion. "[Liberty Mutual] contends that predominance is not met here because 'sorting out which class members suffered an injury in fact can only be done by reviewing the individual circumstances of each class member’s claim' and 'more than a de minimis amount of class members suffered no economic injury,'" Murphy wrote. "These arguments again turn on [Liberty Mutual's] view that the time reasonably required to acquire a replacement vehicle is a necessary showing for each claim, see rather than the breach and harm flowing from [Liberty Mutual's] failure to make that determination in the first place. But until the meaning and scope of the policy’s coverage has been established, the court cannot conclude that individual determinations predominate over the common issues." The suit began when multiple Liberty Mutual policyholders claimed the insurer prematurely stopped their rental car coverage provided by their auto insurance policies after their vehicles were totaled in accidents. Their policies included an "optional transportation expenses coverage endorsement" where Liberty Mutual would cover the rental car expenses for the “period of time reasonably required” to replace the totaled vehicle, up to a maximum of 30 days or $900, the opinion said. The plaintiffs claimed the insurer shirked this "reasonable time" stipulation and instead implemented a uniform, internal practice that often limited their rental policies to seven days and disregarded each customer's circumstances. The plaintiffs moved to certify a class for all Liberty Mutual policyholders with the "optional transportation expenses coverage endorsement" nationwide in May. Liberty Mutual claimed class litigation would turn into "mini trials" about each insured's circumstances and would require the court to individually determine how long each customer reasonably needed to repair their totaled vehicle. The insurer also took aim at the named plaintiffs and said they spent more than "reasonably required" to find a replacement vehicle and their claims were not "typical of the class they seek to represent," the opinion said. On Tuesday, the court rejected the insurer's argument and said all class members had policies containing the same "optional transportation" contract terms. Murphy said the central question among the class members was whether Liberty Mutual had to make a "reasonable time" determination. He also said the amount of extra time the class representatives spent finding a replacement vehicle is an inaccurate depiction of the real issue concerning whether Liberty Mutual breached its insurance contracts by limiting car rental benefits without determining the time reasonably required for a replacement vehicle. "Here, [Liberty Mutual] contends that the class representatives, 'for their own idiosyncratic reasons,' spent more time than reasonably required searching for replacement vehicles, such that their 'claims are not typical of the class they seek to represent,'" Murphy said. "Under plaintiffs’ theory of the case, the actual time reasonably required is not relevant at all. Instead, plaintiffs and all putative class members share the same claims: that [Liberty Mutual's] practice of limiting rental car benefits without first determining the time reasonably required for replacement breached their insurance contracts. The focus is whether a determination was made, not what the correct determination should have been." Michael Twersky, a shareholder at Berger Montague representing the plaintiff class, told Law.com that his team is pleased the court certified the multi-state class, and they look forward to a trial on the merits on behalf of the certified classes. Twersky is joined in representing the plaintiffs by John G. Albanese, Shanon J. Carson and Julie S. Selesnick, also of Berger Montague; and Andrew R. Ochroch and Brett N. Benton, of Ochroch Benton in Philadelphia; among others. Bridgitte E. Mott, James A. Morsch and Stephanie L. Denker, all of Saul Ewing, represent Liberty Mutual and did not return Law.com's request for comment.