May 2012 Case Notes & Comments

“The road to success is always under construction” ~ Lily Tomlin

MONTHLY QUIZ - EVIDENCE: Plaintiff and Defendant are involved in an auto accident in the parking lot of a gas station. At trial, the judge admits the following evidence: (1) A post-occurrence photograph introduced by Defendant that accurately depicted the parking lot’s layout, but does not accurately depict the location of the subject vehicles at the time of the accident; and (2) A statement by Plaintiff to the investigating police officer that her back was hurting, but that it was the result of a prior injury. The jury finds in favor of Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Query: Should the jury verdict for Defendant stand, or did the trial judge commit reversible error?  You be the judge.  (Answer below)


TCPA PENALTY OF $500 PER FAX EQUALS PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR INSURED’S $1 MIL-PLUS SETTLEMENT: The insured was sued for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which imposes a fine of $500 per fax. Insurer defended Insured under a reservation of rights, and filed a declaratory suit to determine its coverage under its policies. Agent opted for independent counsel, settled with Plaintiffs for more than $1 million and then assigned its rights against Insurer in exchange for a promise by Plaintiffs not to execute against Agent’s property or assets other than its policy with Insurer. In the declaratory action, Insurer argued that it had no duty to defend and no duty to satisfy the stipulated judgment because the $500 statutory rate for TCPA violations was equivalent to punitive damages. Trial Court agreed, holding that any amount of damage in excess of actual damages constitutes punitive damages. Accordingly, the agreed-upon settlement was not insurable as a matter of Illinois law and public policy, and therefore not recoverable from Insurer. HELD: Affirmed. Standard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lay, 2012 IL App (4th) 110527 (Apr. 20, 2012)


VERDICT AGAINST NURSING HOME UPHELD: Nursing Home Patient falls, breaks his hip, and later dies.  His estate sues Nursing Home.  Evidence at trial is that a pre-admission evaluation was not communicated to Patient’s caregivers, there were gaps in supervision, and a nonfunctioning call button in Patient’s room. Jury was instructed that the Nursing Home Care Act provides that “[a]n owner, licensee, administrator, employee or agent of a facility shall not abuse or neglect a resident.” The Fifth District upheld a jury verdict for Patient’s estate as supported by the evidence. Graves v. Rosewood Care Center, Inc. of Edwardsville, 2012 IL App (5th) 100033 (Apr. 11, 2012)


TARGETED TENDERS NOT ALLOWED TO CHRONOLOGICALLY CONSECUTIVE INSURERS: Insured School District faced three suits alleging damages stemming from mold exposure from 1981 through 2001, and tendered its defense to multiple insurers that had covered the Insured consecutively over the time period.  Several insurers then “settled” their defense obligations with Insured, and Insured agreed to “de-activate” the tender to those insurers, leaving only one tender active.  The remaining insurer sued, alleging Insured violated insurance contract by entering into secret settlements with other insurers and tendering the defense to only one insurer.  Illinois is one of only three states that allow an insured to target its tender to one insurer over other chronologically concurrent insurers.  The Illinois Appellate Court declined to extend that rule to chronologically consecutive insurers, and found the de-activation of tenders to the other insurers improper.  Illinois School District Agency v. The St. Charles Community Unit School District 303, 2012 Ill.App. (1st) 100088 (Mar. 30, 2012).


PART-TIME POSITION OF MAYOR, WITH NO SALARY, IS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE AS BUSINESS PURSUIT: Mayor of Municipality was sued for allegedly providing residents with contaminated drinking water. The office of mayor is a part-time position with an annual salary from $1,000 to $6,000, and he donated his entire annual salary back to Municipality every year. Mayor’s homeowner’s Insurer refused to defend and filed a declaratory action based upon the “business pursuits” exclusion, which defined a “business pursuit” as a “trade, profession or occupation”.  In the declaratory judgment case, the trial court ruled for the Mayor, but the Appellate Court reversed and ruled for the Insurer, finding that the “very nature” of the position of mayor was an “occupation”, in which Mayor participated on a “continuous and regular” basis. Appellate Court also found the amount of compensation and the part-time nature of the position irrelevant.Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stranczek, 2012 IL App (1st) 103760 (Mar. 30, 2012)


ANSWER TO QUIZ: The appellate court held that the trial judge was wrong on both issues, and ordered a new trial. (1) Photograph:  The Appellate Court held that the probative value in depicting the layout of the scene was outweighed by the prejudice to Plaintiff in admitting a photo that did not accurately portray the location of the vehicles at the time of the car accident in the parking lot. (2) Statement to police officer:  If a defendant wishes to introduce evidence that the plaintiff has suffered a prior injury, whether to the “same part of the body” or not, the defendant must introduce expert evidence demonstrating why the prior injury is relevant to causation, damages, or some other issue of consequence. As Defendant did not offer any expert testimony connecting the injuries, the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the police officer to testify to Plaintiff’s statement. Johnson v. Bailey, 2012 Ill. App. (3rd) 102641 (Mar. 30. 2012)

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