Kinsey v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 21 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 63-0-8 |
| Citation | 194 N.E.2d 565,44 Ill.App.2d 304 |
| Parties | Milton KINSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ted THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lindauer, Nieman & Lindauer, Belleville, Aubrey B. Hamilton, St. Louis, Mo., Curt C. Lindauer, Jr., Belleville, of counsel, for appellant.
Brady, Donovan & Hatch, E. St. Louis, Harold A. Donovan, E. St. Louis, of counsel, for appellee.
This cause is before us as the result of an action for personal injuries, filed by Milton Kinsey, as plaintiff, as against Ted Thompson, as defendant, following an accident. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations applicable in such cases. Plaintiff then raised the defense of estoppel in pais against the defense of the Statute of Limitations, and filed affidavits, at the time fixed for hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss, setting forth that plaintiff personally discussed his claim with a claim representative of the insurance company carrying defendant's liability insurance; that thereafter the attorney for plaintiff proceeded with his claim, and received a letter requesting medical reports and information as to damages from the insurance company representative. On April 24, 1961, the affidavit states that copies of medical reports and a list of injuries was transmitted on behalf of plaintiff. The affidavit specifies that on the following day the Adjuster called the attorney and stated that he agreed that the settlement negotiations must contemplate a substantial payment and repeated that the plaintiff had earlier demanded payment of at least $15,000.00, and that he was quite certain that the plaintiff would expect an additional amount, including an amount to cover his attorney fees. The affidavit states that the adjuster then stated that in view of the situation he needed information in his file to support a substantial payment on the part of the insurance company, and requested evidence of loss of earnings suffered by plaintiff as the result of his injuries, and also requested a medical examination by a physician selected by the insurance company. The plaintiff was examined by a physician chosen by the insurance company, and thereafter a number of conferences were held in connection with evidence relating to loss of earnings. Apparently it was agreed that the injuries were permanent and partially disabling. The attorney for plaintiff made a settlement proposal of $25,000.00, and the adjuster then requested copies of plaintiff's income tax returns as proof of earned income. On March 15, 1962, the adjuster was furnished with photostatic copies of plaintiff's partnership income tax returns for 1959 and 1960. The affidavit then proceeds to specify that numerous settlement conferences were held between the adjuster and the attorney prior to and subsequent to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. The two-year period from the date of the injury expired on July 6 1962. Apparently liability was conceded by the adjuster and a reduced settlement demand was received by the adjuster on behalf of the defendant insurance company on August 7, 1962, in the amount of $20,000.00. No mention was made at that time of the statute of limitations, and the adjuster stated that he would report a counter offer after he had opportunity to consider the demand. On August 29, 1962 the attorney was advised for the first time that the insurance company had refused to authorize a counter offer or any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vaughn v. Speaker
... ... Lueber (1970), 43 Ill.App.3d 973, 3 Ill.Dec. 126, 358 N.E.2d 293; Kinsey v. Thompson (1963), 44 Ill.App.2d 304, 194 N.E.2d 565), and payments by the insurer during the period of negotiation (Flagler v. Wessman (1970), 130 ... ...
-
Niziolek v. Chicago Transit Authority
... ... Wildheim (1976), 37 Ill.App.3d 835, 838, 347 N.E.2d 463, 465, citing Kinsey v. Thompson (1963), 44 Ill.App.2d 304, 307, 194 N.E.2d 565, 567) or "lull[ed] plaintiff into a false sense of security which caus[ed] him to delay ... ...
-
United States v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York
... ... 7, 372 P.2d 551 (1962); McLaughlin v. Blake, 120 Vt. 174, 136 A.2d 492 (1957); North v. Culmer, 193 So.2d 701 (Fla. App.1967); Kinsey v. Thompson, 44 Ill. App.2d 304, 194 N.E.2d 565 (Ill.App. 1963); Rupley v. Huntsman, 159 Cal. App.2d 307, 324 P.2d 19 (1958) ... 8 ... ...
-
Pothier v. Chicago Transit Authority
...that his claim will be settled without suit." (D'Urso, 37 Ill.App.3d at 838, 347 N.E.2d at 465, citing Kinsey v. Thompson (1963), 44 Ill.App.2d 304, 307, 194 N.E.2d 565, 567.) Page 535 [179 Ill.Dec. 703] The CTA's disingenuous reasoning would allow it to lull injured passengers into believi......