August 2011 Case Notes & Comments

“Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” ~ John Dewey

MONTHLY QUIZ: Sherriff’s Deputy-Claimant is assigned to the northwest patrol area of the County. During his shift, Deputy drives three miles into the neighboring county on purely personal errand. In violation of department rules and regulations, Deputy fails to notify Dispatch that he is out of the County or request permission to leave his patrol area. While on his errand, Deputy receives a call from Dispatch to assist an officer on a non-emergency call. Deputy immediately responds but is involved in vehicular accident just over a mile from the County line. Deputy is injured and claims workers’ compensation (WC) benefits. County argues that Deputy was not acting in the course and scope of his employment. An arbitrator awards benefits. The WC Commission reverses. A trial court reinstates benefits. Who is right? Was Deputy acting in the course and scope of his employment? Is Deputy entitled to benefits even if he violates work rules? You be the judge. (Answer below).

LEF WINS INSURANCE APPEAL: In a case handled by Patti Deuel, appellate court affirmed ruling that claimant's right to recovery was limited to the insurance covering the truck involved in the accident. The insured had separate policies covering her truck and car. The court ruled that the “two or more cars insured” provision and the regular use exclusion barred coverage under the car policy. Court rejected the claimant’s argument that the exclusion from the car policy had been waived by not being included in the reservation of rights which was issued with respect to the defense provided under the truck policy. West v. American Standard Ins. Co of WI, 2011 IL App 101274 (1st Dist. Jul 26, 2011) 

NEGLIGENCE & SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES: Patient, a blind, paranoid schizophrenic living in Nursing Home was eventually admitted to a secured 5th floor, for mentally ill patients. While Patient suffered from a number of physical ailments, expressed delusional behavior and told several witnesses on multiple occasions that he did not like living at Nursing Home and wanted to “go home” or “get out,” Patient had no history of self-harm or escape and was never found to be a suicide risk. When Nursing Home employee went into Patient’s room, she noticed the window open and discovered Patient lying on the ground below. Several witnesses testified as to whether the fall was unintentional, or suicide. At trial, Nursing Home proffered a special interrogatory asking whether it was foreseeable that Patient would “commit suicide or act in a self-destructive manner,” to which the jury answered “no.” Still, the jury entered a general verdict against Nursing Home. Based on the special interrogatory answer, Trial Court entered judgment in favor of Nursing Home. In IL, a special interrogatory will reverse a general verdict if the two are clearly and absolutely irreconcilable with one another. In affirming, the Appellate Court held that the special interrogatory was irreconcilable with the general verdict reasoning that, without foreseeability there could be no negligence.  Garcia v. Seneca Nursing Home, Case No. 1-10-3085, 2011 WL -- (1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2011)

INSURANCE COVERAGE: Starting in 1959, Owner leased property to Company 1, a manufacturer of industrial coatings and equipment. In ’98, Company 2 purchased the industrial coatings business and with Owner’s consent, Company 1 assigned the lease for the property to Company 2. Under the purchase agreement, Company 2 was assigned “all the benefits, including rights to defense and indemnity coverage, under any and all policies” issued to Company 1. Owner discovered that, between 1959 and 1998, the property became contaminated. Owner sued Company 1, Company 2 and others. Insurer-Defendants issued liability policies to Company 1 that were in effect at the time of the alleged contamination. Insurers defended Company 1, but not Company 2. In a subsequent declaratory action, Company 1 sought reimbursement for all defense costs and damages, arguing that Insurers owed a duty to defend. In view of a no-assignment clause, Insurers argued that polices were not assignable without consent, which was not given. Held: Since occurrence-based policies provide coverage for occurrences within a policy period, regardless of when the claims are pursued, the assignment did not increase Insurers' risk and no consent was needed. Illinois Tool Works v. Commerce & Industry Ins. Co, Case No. 1-09-3084, 2011 WL -- (1st Dist. Aug. 16, 2011)

USE OF SPEAKERPHONE NOT EAVESDROPPING: Defendant was charged with criminal harassment of his Wife by telephone. Evidence included a phone call to Wife who activated her cell phone’s speakerphone during call so that a friend could hear the conversation. Defendant moved to exclude from evidence the content of the alleged harassing phone call on the basis that it was obtained in violation of the Illinois eavesdropping statute.  In a decision with broad application in both criminal and civil cases, the Appellate Court found that using the speakerphone feature did not transform the cell phone into an eavesdropping device, because the speakerphone did not functionally alter the cell phone’s ability to transmit and receive sounds, merely amplifying the audible sounds it normally transmitted. People v. Armbrust, Case No. 2-10-0955, 2011 WL -- (August 23, 2011)

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Deputy wins. In IL, an employee’s injury is only compensable if it arises out of and in the course of the employment. However, a deviation for purely personal reasons takes an employee out of the course of his employment. Here, it was undisputed that at the time of the collision, Deputy was responding to a call from Dispatch. Under the circumstances, the appellate court found that Deputy had completed his deviation and resumed a course of conduct related to his job as a Deputy, notwithstanding the fact that he violated several rules of his employment. Johnson v.IL Workers’ Comp. Com’n,2011 IL App (2d) 100418WC (2nd Dist. Aug. 15, 2011)

Past Publications


June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
January 2024


December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023


December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022


December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021


December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020


December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019


December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018


December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017


December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016


December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015


December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014


December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013


December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012


December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011


December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010


December 2009