in the court’s mind, it is not insignificant that the settlement offers class members a wide range of options to choose among and does not lock them into a specific benefit that may be inappropriate for any one class member’s circumstances. It has been argued that In re General Motors Corp. Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995), requires that the court reject the settlement because of the holding that non-cash and coupon settlements are inappropriate. This is a misread ing of General Motors Corp. Rather, the Third Circuit held that the manner in which the trial court conducted its examination of coupons’ value and the conditions under which the class members could redeem their coupons in the context of that case was improper. 55 F Mich. 1916) (<HOLDING>); Couch §2.32 (citing Julian to state that
holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under  349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute holding that insurance company could sue in insureds name following assignment of insureds interest against tortfeasor holding that an agreement between insurer and insureds whereby insurer reimbursed insureds for costs of providing insurers administrative services did not violate antirebate statutes where agreements were not offered as an inducement to purchase insurance and reimbursements were reasonable in comparison to services rendered holding that insurance agents purchase of drinks for prospective insureds did not violate antirebate statute