in their car will be covered in the event of a UM/UIM accident," while also recognizing that it is "reasonable for members to want to reduce their costs of insurance [by] eliminating class two coverage." T133 These findings, which have record support, distinguish cases where reasonableness could not be found because the benefit actually received was cither de minimis or qualitatively different from the benefit that putative class members expected. But here, plaintiffs did not present any evidence that class two coverage had only minimal value. And both coverages include the same risks. 1 34 Plaintiffs' assertion that the reference to "might" in CJI-Civ. 4th 19:2 (2018) precludes a reasonable reliance inquiry fails for two reasons. First, "might" a m., 238 F.R.D. 482, 491 (C.D.Cal.2006) (<HOLDING>). Evidence of a reasonable alternative
holding that there is a rational basis for the distinction recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice holding inference appropriate where no rational class member would have acted if there had been adequate disclosure holding that the court could reasonably assume that no rational class member would have purchased the product had he known of the alleged misrepresentation holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action