11.  According to State Auto's website, www.stateauto.com, State Auto was  created in 1921 and currently has assets of $4.6 billion and writes $2.0 billion in premiums  in the United States.   12.  Plaintiff, like all proposed class members, currently has, had, or was  covered under a contract of automobile insurance with State Auto. The contract of  insurance between Plaintiff, as well as each proposed class member, and State Auto  provides coverage for the total loss of a vehicle in an accident on the basis of the "actual  cash value" of the vehicle or the "[ a ]mount necessary to repair or replace the property with  other property of like kind and quality". See Exhibit 1 (Policy) at pp. 33-35. The material  policy language for all State Auto policies during the relevant time period is identical or  substantially the same.   13.  For total loss claims that deviate from providing actual cost values, "[a]ny  deductions from such cost, including deduction for salvage, must be measurable,  discernible, itemized and specified as to dollar amount and shall be appropriate in amount.  The basis for such settlement shall be fully explained to the first party claimant." Arkansas  Insurance Regulation 43, § 10. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that any  adjustments are reasonable, justified and fully explained and to ensure that consumers have  the ability to evaluate and challenge any deductions that are improper.   15.  State Auto bases its valuations and payments on total loss claims on  manipulated data and reports that do not meet State Auto's duties under Arkansas law,  imposing unmeasurable, indiscernible, nonitemized, unspecified and unexplained  "condition adjustments" to artificially reduce the values of comparable vehicles.   16.  Upon information and belief, to calculate its valuations and claims  payments, State Auto obtains a market valuation report from a third-party company called  CCC Information Services, Inc. ("CCC"). These market valuation reports purport to  contain values for comparable vehicles recently sold or for sale in the geographic area of  the insured. The reports also contain a purported valuation for the loss vehicle based upon  the data for the comparable vehicles in the report. Upon information and belief, State Auto  instructs CCC as to what specific data to include in the report as the basis for the valuation,  including whether to include condition adjustments to the comparable vehicles.   17.  As a general business practice, State Auto offers its insureds a claim amount  equivalent to the valuation of the loss vehicle that is specified in the market valuation report  prepared by third-party CCC.   19.  Plaintiff owned a 2014 Lexus RX 350 A WD that was deemed a total loss  on or about September 21, 2018.   20.  Plaintiff made a claim with State Auto for the total loss of her vehicle.   21.  State Auto provided a total loss valuation to Plaintiff for her total loss claim.  State Auto based its offer upon a valuation report obtained from CCC.   22.  State Auto valued Plaintiffs total loss claim at $25,326.001 and paid  Plaintiff that amount. State Auto's valuation was based on a CCC market valuation report.  The market valuation report listed values of four different comparable vehicles and applied  a uniform condition adjustment of -$966 to all four vehicles without itemizing or  explaining the basis of the adjustment as required by Arkansas law. The market valuation  report reduced the amount of the four comparable vehicles by exactly the same amount,  regardless of any individual differences in the condition. These unmeasurable,  indiscernible, nonitemized, unspecified and unexplained adjustments were violative of  Arkansas law and contrary to State Auto's contractual obligations, and they resulted in an  underpayment on Plaintiffs claim of $966.  24.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or  controlled person of Defendants, as well as the officers, directors, agents, servants or  employees of Defendants and the immediate family members of any such person. Also  excluded is any judge who may preside over this cause of action.   25.  The exact number of the Class, as herein identified and described, is not  known, but it is estimated to be at least one hundred. Accordingly, the Class is so numerous  that joinder of individual members herein is impracticable.   27.  The claims of the Plaintiff, who is representative of the class herein, are  typical of the claims of the proposed class, in that the claims of all members of the proposed  class, including the Plaintiff, depend on a showing of the acts of State Auto giving rise to  the right of Plaintiff to the relief sought herein. There is no conflict between the individually  named Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class with respect to this action, or  with respect to the claims for relief set forth herein.   28.  The named Plaintiff is the representative party for the Class, and is able to,  and will fairly and adequately, protect the interests of the Class. The attorneys for Plaintiff  and the Class are experienced and capable in complex civil litigation, insurance litigation  and class actions.   29.  Class certification is appropriate under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) because State Auto's actions are generally applicable to the Class as a whole, and  Plaintiff seeks equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole.   31.  Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all- preceding paragraphs contained   32.  State Auto's insurance contract with its insureds provides coverage for the  total loss of a vehicle in an accident on the basis of actual cash value of the vehicle or the  amount necessary to replace the insured vehicle with a vehicle of like kind and quality.   33.  State Auto has breached its contract with Plaintiff and the members of the  Class by not paying total loss claims upon the actual cash value ofloss vehicles. State Auto  departed from the use of actual cash value by basing its valuations and claims payments on  the values of comparable vehicles that have been artificially reduced by an arbitrary and  unjustified "condition adjustment" that is unmeasurable, indiscernible, nonitemized,  unspecified and/or unexplained.   35.  State Auto's breaches and violations have caused damage to Plaintiff and  the Class. Plaintiffs and proposed Class members' damages include the amounts illegally  deducted by State Auto from the insureds' payments.  herein.  36.  Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs contained   37.  An actual case and controversy within the meanmg of the Arkansas  Declaratory Judgment Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111-101, et seq., which may be  adjudicated by this Court exists between Plaintiff and the proposed Class and State Auto.   38.  Plaintiff, for herself and on behalf of the Class, seeks a declaration of rights  and liabilities of the parties herein. Specifically, Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that in  paying total loss claims with first-party insureds, it is a violation of Arkansas law and the  insurance contract with State Auto for State Auto to base the valuation and payment of  claims on values of comparable vehicles that have been reduced by "condition  adjustments" that are unmeasurable, indiscernible, nonitemized, unspecified and/or  unexplained.   39.  State Auto's unlawful common policy and general business practice as  described herein are ongoing. Accordingly, State Auto has violated, and continues to  violate, Arkansas law.   A.  State Auto's Improper Valuation of Total Loss Claims.   BREACH OF CONTRACT   DECLARATORY JUDGMENT  