Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83 (1997)

Adams v. Robertson

No. 95-1873

Decided March 3, 1997
520 U.S. 83

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Syllabus

Respondent Robertson filed a class action in Alabama alleging that respondent Liberty National Life Insurance Company had fraudulently encouraged its customers to exchange existing health insurance policies for new ones with less coverage. The trial court made him class representative and certified the class under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which do not give class members the right to opt out of a class. It then approved the settlement that precluded class members from individually suing Liberty National for fraud based on its exchange program. Petitioners, who had objected to the settlement in the trial court, appealed, and the state supreme court affirmed in an opinion addressing only state law issues. Certiorari was granted on the question whether the certification and settlement violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because class members could not opt out of the class or settlement.

Held: Since petitioners have failed to establish that they properly presented the due process issue to the Alabama Supreme Court, this Court will not reach the question presented, and the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted. With rare exceptions, Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 533, this Court will not consider a petitioner’s federal claim that was not addressed by, or properly presented to, the state court rendering the decision. The Alabama Supreme Court did not expressly address the claim raised here, and petitioners have not shown that it was properly presented to that court. When the highest state court is silent on the federal question before this Court, it is assumed that the issue was not properly presented; the aggrieved party bears the burden of defeating this assumption, Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 550, by demonstrating that the state court had a fair opportunity to address the issue, Webb v. Webb, 451 U.S. 493, 501. Petitioners have not met this burden. They have not demonstrated that they complied with the applicable state rules for raising their federal claim before the state supreme court, see, e.g., Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Crenshaw, 486 U.S. 71, 77-78, explained why the failure to comply with those rules would not be an adequate and inddpendent ground for the state court to disregard that claim, see, e.g., Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255, 262-265, or shown that their claim was presented with fair precision and in due time, see, e.g., New Yorkex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 67. Even assuming that the rule that a claim be addressed or properly presented in state court is purely prudential, the circumstances here justify no exception. An interest in penalizing respondents for failing to raise a timely objection to petitioners’ failure to comply with the rule does not outweigh the interest of comity the rule serves or the value to this Court of a fully developed record upon which to base its decisions.

Certiorari dismissed as improperly granted. Reported below: 676 nSo.2d 1265.