Ins. Code 10113.71 and 10113.72 require insurers to give specified notice and a 60-day grace period before terminating life insurance policies for non-payment of premiums. This decision holds that there is no private right of action directly under the statutes; the insured’s only remedy is a breach of contract claim alleging breach of the impliedly incorporated statute. To have a viable contract claim, the insured must be able to show that he was damaged by the lack of the required notices–i.e., that he would have paid the premium and renewed the policy if proper notice had been given. Because proof of causation and damage turns on individual evidence–as many policyholders stop paying premiums as a means of voluntarily terminating their insurance–the trial court erred in certifying plaintiff classes in this action. The non-common causation and damage questions predominated. The plaintiff who alleged she would have renewed her policy if properly notified was atypical of many class members. The trial court improperly certified a subclass to which plaintiff did not belong. A 23(b)(2) class was also improper and the summary judgment in its favor for injunctive and declaratory relief was reversed because, again, many class members wanted to terminate their life insurance and should not be forced into contracts and obligations to pay premiums that they did not voluntarily incur.