Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Robeza

• Decision Date: 16 February 1990
• Docket Number: No. 5-89-0228,5-89-0228
• Citation: 194 Ill.App.3d 468,141 Ill.Dec. 506,551 N.E.2d 693
• Parties: , 141 Ill.Dec. 506 GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBEZA, Administrator of the Estate of Vivian Robeza, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 693

551 N.E.2d 693

194 Ill.App.3d 468, 141 Ill.Dec. 506

GOLDEN RULE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBEZA, Administrator of the Estate of Vivian Robeza Defendant-Appellee.

No. 5-89-0228.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fifth District.

Feb. 16, 1990.

Guy E. McGaughey, Jr., McGaughey & McGaughey, Ltd., Lawrenceville, for plaintiff-appellant.

Dyer & Walton, Robert G. Dyer, San Diego, Cal., Cox Phillips, Weber, Tedford & Heap, Max C. Tedford, Robinson, for defendant-appellee.

Justice GOLDENHERSH delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (107 Ill.2d R. 307(a)(1)) brought by plaintiff, Golden Rule Insurance Company, from an order of the circuit court of Lawrence County denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the stay of the trial proceedings and for immediate trial of the issues in the Illinois case because of the status of a pending case between the same parties in California. In this cause plaintiff raises four issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request to vacate the stay, (2) whether the California trial court's post-trial orders and judgment have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in Illinois, (3) whether the preexisting condition clause in the Golden Rule policy was addressed in the California litigation, and (4) whether defendant, Brian Robeza, administrator of the estate of Vivian Robeza, has abused the Illinois trial and appellate process. We affirm and remand.

In this appeal both parties filed motions to supplement the record on appeal to include a decision of the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District. This court denies both parties' motions. Plaintiff also filed a motion to impose sanctions against defendant pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (Official Reports Advance Sheets No. 13, June 28, 1989, R. 375(b)). We likewise deny this motion. Therefore, our review today is limited to the same facts that were before the trial court. We will briefly summarize those facts.

Defendant, Brian Robeza, is the administrator of the Illinois estate of his deceased mother, Vivian Robeza. Vivian resided in Illinois and applied to plaintiff for a health insurance policy on May 1, 1984. She made the application through an independent insurance agent who sold policies for plaintiff. A policy was issued to Vivian stating it was effective May 2, 1984. Shortly after this date, Vivian became ill. She traveled to California to stay with her daughter, where her condition worsened and she was hospitalized. She ultimately died at her daughter's home in California on August 1, 1987. Due to her illness, her family submitted claims to plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to pay any benefits on the policy, contending that it had never gone into effect since Vivian had failed to answer question number 13 on the application form, and plaintiff, through the independent agent, had informed her that she would have to sign an amendment to the policy incorporating her answer to question number 13 before the policy would take effect. Plaintiff had insisted Vivian execute this amendment in the presence of the independent agent. On July 3, 1984, plaintiff notified Vivian that her file was being closed because she had not returned to Illinois to sign the policy. The claims remain unpaid.

On November 2, 1984, Vivian's family filed an action in San Diego County, California, against plaintiff, alleging tortious breach of the insurance contract. On November 5, 1984, plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court of Lawrence County, Illinois, requesting declaratory relief by finding: (1) that insurance coverage for Vivian Robeza had never gone into effect, (2) that the medical expenses incurred were not covered under the policy because they arose from a preexisting condition, or (3) that the insurance contract should be rescinded due to misrepresentations by the applicant.

The case in California and the case in Illinois have been a constant source of conflict for over four and a half years. On August 7, 1985, defendant filed an amended notice of interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 307 (107 Ill.2d R. 307), a petition for leave to appeal under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(1)(ii) (107 Ill.2d R. 306(a)(1)(ii)) and a motion to stay the Illinois proceedings. Defendant's appeals were dismissed by this court in No. 5-85-0513. Plaintiff then took evidentiary depositions of witnesses. Thereafter, defendant obtained a certification under Supreme Court Rule 308 (107 Ill.2d R. 308) on the issue of another cause pending between the parties. We granted leave to appeal and in a published decision dated December 8, 1986, held against defendant. (Golden Rule Insurance Co. v. Robeza (1986), 151 Ill.App.3d 801, 104 Ill.Dec. 410, 502 N.E.2d 1070, hereinafter referred to as Golden Rule I.) Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal to the supreme court, which was denied. Defendant filed another motion on May 28, 1987, seeking a change of venue intermixed with a claim of forum non conveniens citing Macoupin County, Illinois, as a proper and more convenient forum. Before the case could be set for trial in Illinois, the California case commenced a jury trial on June 2, 1987. The California jury returned a verdict that Vivian had made material misrepresentations on her application which allowed this plaintiff to void the policy. However, the California court entered a judgment n.o.v. in favor of this defendant on a number of issues, holding this plaintiff liable to the estate of deceased for bad faith and to deceased's children for negligent infliction of emotional stress. A new trial was also granted by the court. An appeal and cross-appeal to the California appellate court followed. Defendant's motion to transfer venue to Macoupin County intermixed with forum non conveniens was denied by the Illinois circuit court, and an order was entered on January 27, 1988, that the Illinois trial should proceed on May 16, 1988. Defendant again came before this court seeking review of the trial court's ruling on venue intermixed with the forum non conveniens issue. On April 29, 1988, we entered an amended order denying defendant's petition for leave to appeal. On April 11, 1988, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint arguing that the California trial court's post-trial orders and judgment were res judicata as to the issues to be tried on plaintiff's complaint in this cause. On May 9, 1988, defendant filed a motion to stay these proceedings which the trial court granted on May 11, 1988. It is this decision that plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff's first issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's request to vacate the stay. Plaintiff argues that the pendency of the California action and its relationship to the Illinois case were considered in depth by this court in our 1986 published opinion in Golden Rule I. In that case, we affirmed the trial court's decision to allow the Illinois case to proceed despite the fact that an action involving virtually the same parties and the same issues had been filed in California. Plaintiff contends that the trial court disregarded our "mandate" in that opinion by later staying the Illinois trial. Ultimately, plaintiff seeks to have the trial court's decision reversed with directions to proceed to trial. Defendant responds that Golden Rule I was not a "mandate" requiring the Illinois action to proceed to trial, but was merely a finding that the lower court had not abused its discretion in refusing to stay the Illinois action. Defendant also contends that the circumstances between the parties changed substantially once the California court returned its judgment. Allowing the Illinois...