Highsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co.
| Citation | 17 Ill.App.3d 615,308 N.E.2d 204 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 57490,57490 |
| Parties | Teresa HIGHSMITH, a minor by Samuel Highsmith, her father and next friend, etc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Michael J. Bucko, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, for defendant-appellee; John L. Kirland, D. Kendall Griffith, Chicago, William R. Kucera, Chicago of counsel.
This is an action brought by plaintiff, Teresa Highsmith, a minor, through her father and next friend, individually and on behalf of the class of persons similarly situated, for recovery of money. The defendant, an insurance company, issued a policy of automobile insurance to plaintiff, and identical automobile policies to others. The policies contained an 'uninsured motorists' provision and an 'auto medical payments' provision. The defendant charged and collected a separate premium for each of the two coverages.
The plaintiff had an accident with an uninsured motorist resulting in medical expenses in excess of $1,000.00, the amount of the medical pay provision. The plaintiff and defendant could not agree as to the amount of the damages the uninsured motorist owed plaintiff and the issue was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator found that the plaintiff was entitled to collect $7,500.00. Defendant paid plaintiff $7,500.00 under the uninsured motorist provision of its policy. Plaintiff demanded the additional sum of $1,000.00 medical expenses under the medical provision which the defendant refused to pay. The court allowed the claim and entered judgment for $1,000.00 and costs. Appellant has not appealed that part of the judgment.
The plaintiff alleged that there were, and are, numerous policy holders of the defendant, too numerous to determine, who having paid two premiums for two coverages were paid benefits under the uninsured motorist provision and were not paid benefits under the medical pay provision.
Defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for the reason that the provision of the policy about which plaintiff complains is valid and that the facts alleged do not contain the elements necessary for the maintenance of a class action. There is no basis for a class action proceeding. Illinois requires that the claims of the purported members of a class action arise from the same transaction and from transactions so similar that they are tantamount to the same transaction. (Moseid v. McDonough, 103 Ill.App.2d 23, 243 N.E.2d 394.)
In this case, plaintiff's claim cannot reasonably be said to stand in judgment in the place of all others in the purported class. The facts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Midas-International Corp.
...same transaction and from transactions so similar that they are tantamount to the same transaction.' (Highsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 615, 617, 308 N.E.2d 204, 205.) A class action can properly be prosecuted where a defendant is alleged to have acted wrongfully in the s......
-
Illinois Legislative Investigating Commission v. Markham, s. 76-163
...v. Cooper (1936), 362 Ill. 469, 200 N.E. 173; McDonald v. Shimeall (1917), 282 Ill. 42, 118 N.E. 399; Highsmith v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 615, 308 N.E.2d 204; In Re Trapani's Estate (1959), 21 Ill.App.2d 19, 157 N.E.2d 83. See also Annot., 69 A.L.R.2d 701 (1960).) Since the......
-
Edelman v. Lee Optical Co., Inc.
...Hagerty v. General Motors, Ill., 319 N.E.2d 5; Rice v. Snarlin, Inc., 131 Ill.App.2d 434, 266 N.E.2d 183; Highsmith v. Allstate Insurance Co., 17 Ill.App.3d 615, 308 N.E.2d 204, 308.) Thus it is required 'that the claims of the purported members of a class action arise from the same transac......
-
McCabe v. Burgess, 14486
...995; Hagerty v. General Motors Corp. (1974), 59 Ill.2d 52, 319 N.E.2d 5; Reardon v. Ford Motor Co.; Highsmith v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 615, 308 N.E.2d 204. Several other cases have established that proof of separate transactions between the members of the class and th......