Washington--Did a judge who took a huge contribution from StateFarm act properly when he voted on a judicial panel to toss out abillion-dollar verdict against the insurer?

Plaintiffs in the billion-dollar State Farm aftermarket partscase are asking that question in papers requesting the U.S. SupremeCourt review the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court to throwout the award against the company.

State Farm was accused in the case of improperly requiring theuse of inferior generic parts rather than original manufacturer'sequipment for repair of policyholders' damaged vehicles.

In their petition, lawyers for the plaintiffs allege State Farmunconstitutionally bought the verdict by financing the successfulelection campaign of Lloyd Karmeir, the state justice who cast thedeciding vote to vacate the jury verdict, which was ultimatelyreduced by the trial court judge.

"May a judge who receives more than $1 million in direct andindirect campaign contribution from a party [to the case] and itssupporters, while that party's case is pending, cast the decidingvote in that party's favor, consistent with the due process clauseof the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?" the plaintiffs inAvery v. State Farm ask the High Court in their petition forreview.

Lawyers from firms in San Francisco and Chicago, as well as afaculty member of Stanford Law School, are representing theplaintiffs in the petition for certiorari. The petition was filedby the court Jan. 3 and assigned Case No. 05-842.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs were unavailable for comment. Aspokesman for State Farm said the company "intends to respond tothe filing in due course."

Judge Karmeir's office said he could not comment on a pendingcase.

The plaintiffs are appealing the Illinois Supreme Court decisionmade on August 2005 vacating a $1.05 billion award by an Illinoisjury in 1999 to 4,762,000 State Farm policyholders in 48 stateswhose first-party comprehensive and collision claims had beenrepaired through use of non-original equipment manufacturer crashparts.

The Illinois Supreme Court said in reversing the judgment thatthe claims of the class were too diverse to meet the definition ofa class-action lawsuit.

Differences in customers' insurance policies meant they did notshare the same conditions necessary to sue as a group, the justicesfound.

Furthermore, the court found, it was a mistake for an Illinoistrial court to grant national class-action status when there wasonly one named plaintiff from Illinois and he failed to prove hehad suffered actual damages.

In a friend of the court brief to the Illinois Supreme Court,the United States Chamber of Commerce had noted the case wasoriginally filed in Williams County, which ranked as one of theworst jurisdictions in the country for class action abuse, dubbedby some anti-plaintiff's lawyer groups as a "judicialhellhole."

The suit was filed as part of consumer dissatisfaction withpersonal lines' auto insurance underwriters' efforts to use theparts in question, modeled after the manufacturers' originalequipment but not made to manufacturer specifications. The lawsuitcontends they are inferior and fail to deliver the same level ofquality, fit and, in come cases, safety as factory-made parts.

A State Court jury ordered State Farm to pay nearly $1.2 billionfor failing to provide top-quality parts when paying for autorepairs. At the time, it was the largest judgment in Illinoishistory. The judgment was later reduced to $1.05 billion.

In their petition for review, the lawyers for the plaintiffsargue that the case--which dates to 1997--was argued before andsubmitted to the Supreme Court of Illinois in May 2003.

But the case was not decided until August 2005. In the interim,in November 2004, a regularly scheduled election was held to fill avacant seat on the court.

"The winner of this election, then trial Judge Lloyd Karmeir,directly received over $350,000 of donations" from [State Farm] andits lawyers, and from supporters of State Farm who submittedfriends of the court briefs and their lawyers," the petition said."Over $1 million in additional funds came indirectly from groupswith which State Farm was affiliated and a member," the petitionsaid.

"After his election, Justice Karmeir declined to recuse himselffrom this matter, and then cast the deciding fourth voteoverturning the verdict against State Farm," the petition said.