In In re IKO Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, 757 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2014) (No. 14-1532), plaintiffs alleged a roofing shingle manufacturer sold shingles that did not comply with the industry standard.  The district court denied certification, finding the difficulty in applying a common remedy precluded certification.  The district court had found the inevitable differences in consumers’ experiences with the product prevented class certification.  The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of certification, finding a class could be certified on each of plaintiffs’ theories of liability, as well as on the potential remedy under plaintiffs’ economic loss claim, i.e., that the failure to comply with the standard made the shingles less valuable at the point of purchase.  Plaintiff’s alternate theory, i.e., that the shingles failed due to the fact that they did not meet the standard, would require buyer-specific hearings on causation and remedy.  As to this claim, a class could be certified as to liability questions.  Thus, under either theory, a class could be certified.  The court therefore remanded the matter to the district court for further consideration.