Kittay v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 14 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-705,78-705 |
Citation | 78 Ill.App.3d 335,397 N.E.2d 200,33 Ill.Dec. 867 |
Parties | , 33 Ill.Dec. 867 Agnes KITTAY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jeffrey M. Goldberg and Martin A. Smith, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Baker & McKenzie, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, The Travelers Ins. Co.
Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, for defendants-appellees, Allstate Ins. Co., Commercial Union Assur. and Home Ins. Co.
Keck, Cushman, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, for defendants-appellees, CNA Ins., Hartford Ins. Co., and Automobile Insurance Company.
Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney, Chartered, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Heritage Ins. Co.
Menk, Bishop & Kezelis, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Greenberg, McCarthy & Riley, Skokie, for defendant-appellee, Prestige Cas. Co.
Thomas P. McLaughlin, Schaumburg, for defendant-appellee, Safeco Ins. Co. of America.
Fisch & Lansky, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Coronet Ins. Co.
Parrillo, Bresler, Weiss & Moss, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Safeway Ins. Co., Transamerica Insurance Group.
Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann, Hoban & Fuller, Chicago, for defendants-appellees, Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. of Illinois, Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Zurich Ins. Co., American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., and Illinois Emp. Ins. of Wausau.
Jenner & Block, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Ins. Co. of North America.
Epton & Druth, Ltd., Chicago, for defendants-appellees, Continental Ins. Co. and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.
Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, North American Co. for Property and Cas. Ins.
Dale L. Schlafer, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Home & Auto. Ins. Co.
Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney, Chartered, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Heritage Ins. Co.
Menk, Bishop & Kezelis, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Greenberg, McCarthy & Riley, Skokie, for defendant-appellee, Prestige Cas. Co.
Thomas P. McLaughlin, Schaumburg, for defendant-appellee, Safeco Ins. Co. of America.
Fisch & Lansky, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Coronet Ins. Co.
Parrillo, Bresler, Weiss & Moss, Chicago, for defendant-appellee, Safeway Ins. Co. RIZZI, Justice.
Plaintiffs Agnes Kittay, Stephen Carponelli, and Donald Millman brought this action individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated against three insurance companies which issued policies to them respectively and against twenty other insurance companies. The plaintiffs allege that defendants were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 32, par. 411 and seek injunctive and monetary relief. All twenty-three defendants filed motions to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause of action. The twenty insurance companies which had no dealings or relationship with plaintiffs included the lack of standing as an additional ground in their motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss, ruling that defendants were not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that plaintiffs did not have standing to sue the twenty defendants with whom they had no relationship. The trial court also denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We affirm.
Plaintiffs are insured under a general automobile liability policy issued separately by their respective insurance companies. All defendants sell such policies. Each policy includes the obligation to furnish the insured with legal counsel in the event an action is brought against the insured. Defendants use attorneys who are their employees in fulfilling this obligation to defend. Plaintiffs contend that the insurance companies are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by using attorneys that are directly employed by them to defend their insureds.
Section 1 of "An act to prohibit corporations from practicing law * * * " (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 32, par. 411) provides that it is unlawful for a corporation to practice law or appear as an attorney at law. However, section 415 contains exceptions to this prohibition. Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 32, par. 415. It provides:
Nothing contained in this act shall prohibit a corporation from employing an attorney or attorneys in and about its own immediate affairs or in any litigation to which it is or may be a party, Or in any litigation in which any corporation may be interested by reason of the issuance of any policy or undertaking of insurance, guarantee or indemnity * * *. (Emphasis added.)
Plainly, section 5 states that a corporation may employ an attorney in any litigation in which the corporation may be interested by reason of the issuance of any policy of insurance. The defendant insurance companies surely have such an interest in the defense of their insureds since they have a monetary obligation under the policies. Accordingly, section 5 authorizes the defendant insurance companies to employ attorneys to defend their policyholders.
Plaintiffs also contend that section 5 violates the constitutional prohibition against special legislation. They argue that the statute allows only insurance companies to represent the interests of third persons. The Illinois Constitution provides that a special law shall not be passed when a general law is or can be made applicable. Ill.Const.1970, Art. IV, § 13. Specifically, the legislature cannot unreasonably impose a particular burden or confer a special right, privilege or immunity upon a portion of the people. Bridgewater v. Hotz, 51 Ill.2d 103, 109-111, 281 N.E.2d 317, 321, 322 (1972); Fox v. Rosewell, 55 Ill.App.3d 860, 863, 13 Ill.Dec. 570, 574, 371 N.E.2d 287, 291 (1977). A statute must operate uniformly throughout the state and on all persons similarly situated, though it is not necessary that it affect everyone in the same way. Friedman & Rochester v. Walsh, 67 Ill.2d 413, 422, 10 Ill.Dec. 559, 563, 367 N.E.2d 1325, 1329 (1977); Youhas v. Ice, 56 Ill.2d 497, 500, 309 N.E.2d 6, 8 (1974). Since this statute applies to Any corporation which has issued a policy or undertaking of Insurance, guarantee or indemnity, it operates uniformly and on all persons similarly situated; its operation is not limited to insurance companies. Thus, it does not constitute special legislation.
Twenty of the insurance companies included an additional ground in their motion to dismiss. They contend plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit against them because they had no dealings or relationships with any of the plaintiffs. Courts may decide only actual and specific controversies between parties. Weihl v. Dixon, 56 Ill.App.3d 251, 253, 13 Ill.Dec. 789, 791, 371 N.E.2d 881, 883 (1977); Lynch v. Devine, 45 Ill.App.3d 743, 747, 748, 4 Ill.Dec. 185, 188, 359 N.E.2d 1137, 1140 (1977). Thus, before an action can be brought, there must be a plaintiff with the requisite interest to bring the suit. Edgewater Construction v. Wilson Mortgage, 44 Ill.App.3d 220, 226, 2 Ill.Dec. 864, 870, 357 N.E.2d 1307, 1313 (1976). The cause of action must consist of a primary right of the plaintiff, a duty of the defendant, and a wrong by the defendant which invades the right and breaches the duty. Broccolo v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Wills
...because of the alignment between the insured's interests and the insurance company's interests. Kittay v. Allstate, 78 Ill.App.3d 335, 33 Ill.Dec. 867, 397 N.E.2d 200, 202 (1979) (corporation may employ attorneys "in and about its own immediate affairs"); Strother v. Ohio Casualty Insurance......
-
Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates, D037229.
...the Conduct of Attys. (Fla.1969) 220 So.2d 6; Petn. of Youngblood (Tenn.1995) 895 S.W.2d 322; Kittay v. Allstate (Ill.App.1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 335, 33 Ill. Dec. 867, 397 N.E.2d 200, 202; Strother v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1939) 14 Ohio Opns. No. 139, 28 Ohio Law Abs. 550, 5 Ohio Supp. 362;......
-
Taylor v. City of Beardstown
...not cure any defects in the complaint, then a motion for leave to amend is properly denied. Kittay v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1979), 78 Ill.App.3d 335, 339, 33 Ill.Dec. 867, 870, 397 N.E.2d 200, 203. Plaintiff argues that the theory of res ipsa loquitur was not advanced in her previous amen......
-
American Home v. Uplc
...in Florida, 220 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1969); Coscia v. Cunningham, 250 Ga. 521, 299 S.E.2d 880 (1983); Kittay v. Allstate Ins. Co., 78 Ill.App.3d 335, 33 Ill.Dec. 867, 397 N.E.2d 200 (1979); Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Wills, 717 N.E.2d 151 (Ind.1999); American Insurance Association v. Kentucky......
-
Defense by salaried counsel: a bane or a blessing?
...(1969). Virginia--Virginia State Bar Standing Committee on Legal Ethics, Opinion 598 (1985). (7.) Illinois--Kittay v. Allstate Ins. Co., 397 N.E.2d 200 (Ill.App. 1979). Texas--Utilities Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 138 S.W.2d 1062 (Tex. Comm'n of App. 1940). (8.) 341 S.E.2d 517 (N.C. 1986). The ......