## Facts

- A.H. Robins Company, Inc. manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device.
- Robins carried products-liability insurance through Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna).
- Seven women who alleged injuries from use of the Dalkon Shield petitioned to recover from Aetna, suing it as a joint tortfeasor in its role as Robins’s insurance carrier.
- The women sought to proceed on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated Dalkon Shield users and moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
- While the class-certification motion was pending, the women and Aetna reached a settlement agreement.
- The settlement was expressly conditioned on certification of the proposed class so the agreement could bind class members.
- The district court certified the class action and approved the settlement.
- Objectors and/or other parties appealed, arguing that certifying a class for the purpose of settlement was not permissible under Rule 23 and that certification and approval were improper.

## Issues

1. Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permit a district court to certify a class action for purposes of effectuating a proposed settlement?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in finding that the proposed settlement class satisfied Rule 23’s requirements and in approving the settlement?

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held that Rule 23 does not categorically bar class certification sought in connection with a proposed settlement.
- The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class in these circumstances.
- The court upheld the district court’s approval of the settlement under the standards governing class settlements.
- The district court’s orders certifying the class and approving the settlement were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A class may be certified in connection with a proposed settlement; settlement posture does not, by itself, defeat certification under Rule 23.
- Even in a settlement context, the court must determine that Rule 23(a) prerequisites (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) are satisfied and that the chosen Rule 23(b) category is met.
- In evaluating certification tied to settlement, the absence of a trial can bear on manageability concerns, but it does not excuse compliance with Rule 23’s other requirements.
- A class settlement must be approved under Rule 23(e) only if it is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class.
- Appellate review of class certification and settlement approval is generally for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

In re A.H. Robins Co. holds that Rule 23 permits certification of a class in connection with a settlement and affirms the district court’s certification of a Dalkon Shield-related settlement class and approval of the settlement between the named plaintiffs and Aetna, Robins’s insurer, where the Rule 23 requirements and settlement-approval standards were satisfied.


In re A.H. Robins Co., 880 F.2d 709 (1989)