or inadequate. Rather, it is an added protection provided automatically at no additional cost to Class Members that may or may not otherwise qualify for additional coverage due to their age or health condition. Other courts have agreed that this type of benefit has substantial value to Class Members. See, e.g., Manners, 1999 WL 33581944, at *24, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22880, at *72-73 (stating that “the free protection itself has a value to the Class as a whole, as demonstrated by Class Members’ prior purchase of life insurance.”); Garst v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22666, at *73 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 1999) (same); In re Real Estate Title & Settlement Serv. Antitrust Litig., 1986 WL 6531, at *18, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24435, at *60-61 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 1986) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 815 F.2d 695 (3d Cir.1987). Moreover,
holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding that additional free title insurance provided a benefit to class members regardless of whether they made a claim on that insurance holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates