Herman v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40220,40220 |
| Citation | 38 Ill.2d 98,230 N.E.2d 231 |
| Parties | Alvin P. HERMAN et al., Appellants, v. PRUDENCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Ronald L. Cohen, Chicago (Terence F. MacCarthy, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Carey, Filter, Murray & White, and Schaller, Reilly & Cassidy, Chicago (James C. Murray and Robert P. Freeman, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
This is a direct appeal from the dismissal on the pleadings by the circuit court of Cook County of a complaint for an injunction and damages for alleged malicious interference with contractual rights.
The action was instituted by attorneys Alvin P. Herman and Theodore Tannebaum, and certain of their personal injury clients on behalf of themselves and 87 other allegedly similarly situated clients. The defendants are Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, George F. Barrett, an attorney who is a director of Prudence and defends suits against it, Urban Service Bureau, Inc., which is employed by Prudence and other insurance companies to adjust and settle claims, and William Warren, an employee of Urban. In essence, the plaintiff-attorneys charge that defendants maliciously unethically and fraudulently have attempted to induce their clients to discontinue their business relationships with plaintiff-attorneys and prematurely to settle personal injury or property damage claims against insureds of Prudence without assistance from the attorneys, even though defendants knew that the attorneys had been retained by the clients to handle their claims. In the case of plaintiff Cason it is alleged that defendant succeeded in fraudulently obtaining a release of his claim. Contending that they have not adequate remedy at law, plaintiffs ask for temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting defendants from further communicating with the clients in any way, for actual and punitive damages, and for certain other relief.
In their motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the defendants attacked the complaint on a number of grounds, including their assertion that by seeking 'to enjoin (defendants) from contacting, writing to or speaking with or in any way communicating or attempting to communicate with certain individuals, the complaint attempts to invoke the Court's process to restrict (defendants') exercise of freedom of speech and press contrary to the provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and Section 4, Article II of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.' Defendants' initial argument here is that the trial court failed to rule on the constitutional issue and that we are without jurisdiction on direct appeal. Although we agree that this case must be transferred, we reach that conclusion for reasons other than those argued by defendants. However, it seems appropriate to note that in cases such as this, involving both constitutional and nonconstitutional arguments, it is desirable that the trial judge indicate specifically the grounds upon which his ruling is predicated.
Besides the requirement that a constitutional issue which is raised at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herman v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.
...its agents for alleged malicious interference with contractual rights. The plaintiffs appealed directly here, and we transferred (38 Ill.2d 98, 230 N.E.2d 231) to the First District Appellate Court because of the absence of a substantial constitutional question. That court reversed the tria......
- People v. Strader
-
Robinette v. Department of Public Works and Buildings, 42837
...constitutional question, it is necessary that the question posed present a substantial constitutional issue. (Herman v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co., 38 Ill.2d 98, 230 N.E.2d 231; First National Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Evanston, 30 Ill.2d 479, 197 N.E.2d 705.) Too, we have said that con......