Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies v. Bugailiskis
Decision Date | 28 February 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 2-95-1115,2-95-1115 |
Citation | 214 Ill.Dec. 989,278 Ill.App.3d 19,662 N.E.2d 555 |
Parties | , 214 Ill.Dec. 989 FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANIES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deborah BUGAILISKIS, Defendant-Appellant (Ronald Bugailiskis, Defendant). |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County. No. 93-L-1649; Honorable Patrick N. Lawler, Judge Presiding.
James J. Hermann Jr., James J. Hermann, Jr. & Associates P.C., Waukegan, for Deborah Bugailiskis and Ronald Bugailiskis.
Aronson, Smith & Cross, Robert M. Smith, Kurt E. Olsen, Chicago, for Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill.2d R. 308), defendant, Deborah Bugailiskis, appeals the denial of her motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint demanding a jury trial of defendant's underinsured motorist claim. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether an underinsured motorist coverage arbitration clause which allows arbitration awards to be appealed only when they exceed the minimum liability amount set forth in the Illinois Safety Responsibility Law (625 ILCS 5/7-100 et seq. (West 1994)) is void as against public policy; and (2) if the clause is valid, whether it allows a jury trial as to liability and damages or only as to damages. We reverse and remand.
On March 26, 1989, defendant was injured when a vehicle operated by Rob Delaney ran over her legs. Defendant filed a complaint in the circuit court of Lake County, and Rob Delaney's insurer paid its policy limit of $25,000. At the time of the occurrence, Ronald Bugailiskis, defendant's father, had an automobile insurance policy with plaintiff, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, providing underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $300,000. Ronald Bugailiskis was a party to the lawsuit but is not a party to this appeal. Defendant asserted a claim under that policy for the amount of the damages which exceeded the $25,000 paid by Delaney's carrier.
The claim was submitted to arbitration. On October 8, 1993, the arbitration panel found plaintiff liable and found that defendant's damages were $192,414.99. The panel also found that defendant's comparative negligence was 27 1/2%, which resulted in a net award of $139,500.85.
The arbitration provision in the policy provided in relevant part:
Pursuant to the arbitration provision, plaintiff rejected the award. On December 2, 1993, plaintiff filed a complaint demanding a jury trial.
On August 8, 1995, the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss but found that plaintiff was entitled to a trial only as to the damages issue. On August 17, 1995, the trial court entered an order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308, finding that the issues created by defendant's motion to dismiss involve questions of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal of the August 8, 1995, order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. On August 31, 1995, defendant filed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308. On September 27, 1995, we allowed defendant's application for leave to appeal.
The trial court's August 17, 1995, order certified the following questions for our review:
Illinois law encourages arbitration as a means of reducing litigation in the court system. Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir.1978); Mayflower Insurance Co. v. Mahan, 180 Ill.App.3d 213, 217, 129 Ill.Dec. 159, 535 N.E.2d 924 (1988). However, an arbitration clause is not against public policy merely because it permits nonbinding arbitration. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baaske, 213 Ill.App.3d 683, 688, 157 Ill.Dec. 239, 572 N.E.2d 308 (1991); Mayflower, 180 Ill.App.3d at 217, 129 Ill.Dec. 159, 535 N.E.2d 924.
Our supreme court has not yet determined the validity of this type of arbitration clause. However, the language allowing the parties to demand a trial if the arbitration award is above the minimum liability amount is common in insurance policies, not just in Illinois but in several other states. Several courts have addressed the validity of this type of arbitration clause language, and a majority of those courts have held that the clause itself is void as against public policy. See Mendes v. Automobile Insurance Co., 212 Conn. 652, 563 A.2d 695 (1989); Worldwide Insurance Group v. Klopp, 603 A.2d 788 (Del.1992); Schmidt v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co., 426 N.W.2d 870 (Minn.1988); Hanover Insurance Co. v. Losquadro, 157 Misc.2d 1014, 600 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1993); O'Neill v. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Co., 786 F.Supp. 397 (D.Vt.1992).
In Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont, the courts have held void as against public policy the type of arbitration clause contained in the policy in the present case. The courts have held that, although the clause is ostensibly neutral because it allows either party to demand a trial if the award exceeds the minimum liability amount, application of the "escape hatch" language of the clause unfairly and unequivocally favors the insurer over the insured. O'Neill, 786 F.Supp. at 398. The courts have held that the language allows the insurer to avoid a high award while binding the insured to a low award. O'Neill, 786 F.Supp. at 398-99.
In Klopp, the court stated:
Moreover, courts have held that, although the insurance policy may not technically qualify as a contract of adhesion, it possesses some of the earmarks of an adhesive contract. Schmidt, 426 N.W.2d at 874. The provision lacks mutuality of remedy and was entered into between parties possessing unequal bargaining power with little or no opportunity for arm's length negotiation. Schmidt, 426 N.W.2d at 874.
Courts have also concluded that the clause contravenes the public policy behind arbitration--the efficient, cost-effective resolution of disputes. In Schmidt, the court explained ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rosen
...two cases in which such provisions were struck down as violative of public policy: Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. v. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill.App.3d 19, 214 Ill.Dec. 989, 662 N.E.2d 555 (2d Dist.1996), and Parker v. American Family Insurance Co., 315 Ill.App.3d 431, 248 Ill.Dec. 375, 734 N.E.2d......
-
Bishop v. We Care Hair Development Corp.
...Ill.Dec.824,607 N.E.2d 1337. Such a situation does not exist here. Plaintiffs rely on Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. v. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill.App.3d 19, 214 Ill.Dec. 989, 662 N.E.2d 555 (1996), for the proposition that the clauses conflict with the goal of arbitration, which is to provide eff......
-
Reed v. Farmers Ins. Group
...allowing parties to reject arbitral awards above a certain threshold violate public policy. Fireman's Fund Insurance Cos. v. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill.App.3d 19, 214 Ill.Dec. 989, 662 N.E.2d 555 (1996) (underinsured-motorist coverage); American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baaske, 213 Ill.App.......
-
Barber v. Lm Prop.
...award are void as against public policy. The first Illinois case to so hold was Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies v. Bugailiskis, 278 Ill.App.3d 19, 214 Ill.Dec. 989, 662 N.E.2d 555 (2d Dist.1996). Bugailiskis, relying in part on cases from other states, reasoned that the policy's trial de......