R. Civ. P. 1.22 ne of the class representatives testified that dumping occurred on their property, much less that their property was contaminated. Nor did the class representatives testify that their property had been physically harmed or that their property values had decreased (as opposed to speculation about their property values). Thus, Appellees failed to prove how the class representatives could prove their own trespass, unjust enrichment, negligence, strict liability, or nuisance claims, thereby proving the claims of the unnamed class members. B. “Stigma” damages Moreover, because no proof was adduced that any of the class representa tives’ land was contaminated, the concept of “stigma” damages is inapplicable. Cf. Finkelstein v. Dep’t of Transp., 656 So.2d 921, 924 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>). However, even if the concept of “stigma”
holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties holding that stigma damages were properly included in calculation of severance damages where proximity of gas pipeline could trigger fears about possible mishaps holding that pecuniary damages are not property damages under insureds policy holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact recognizing concept of stigma damages as they apply to property which is in fact contaminated