Kohler v. Woollen, Brown & Hawkins

• Decision Date: 13 December 1973
• Docket Number: No. 11808,11808
• Citation: 15 Ill.App.3d 455,304 N.E.2d 677
• Parties: Terry J. KOHLER, as Administrator of the Estate of Darrell Wayne Wattles, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOOLLEN, BROWN & HAWKINS, a CoPartnership consisting of Lynn A. Woollen, et al., Defendants-Appellants. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DECATUR, as Administrator of the Estate of Ronald Lee Brown, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOOLLEN, BROWN & HAWKINS, a Co-Partnership consisting of Lynn A. Woollen, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 677

304 N.E.2d 677

15 Ill.App.3d 455

Terry J. KOHLER, as Administrator of the Estate of Darrell

Wayne Wattles, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOOLLEN, BROWN & HAWKINS, a CoPartnership consisting of Lynn

A. Woollen, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DECATUR, as Administrator of the Estate of Ronald Lee Brown, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOOLLEN, BROWN & HAWKINS, a Co-Partnership consisting of

Lynn A. Woollen, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11808.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1973.

Hershey, Bliss, Beavers & Periard, Taylorville (Charles B. Bliss, Taylorville, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Willson, Dyar, Houchen & McDonald, Decatur (Vernon H. Houchen, Decatur, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

TRAPP, Justice:

Defendants appeal from two judgments entered upon jury verdicts of $17,500 and $165,000 in consolidated actions for legal malpractice. Defendants, a co-partnership of attorneys, had been employed by the administrators of the estates of Ronald Lee Brown and Darrell Wayne Wattles to seek recovery for the deaths sustained in an automobile accident.

The decedents were passengers in an automobile driven by George Campbell, and died on May 14, 1962. Campbell was nuinsured, but the plaintiffs' decedents were each insured by Country Mutual Casualty Insurance Company policies which contained uninsured motorist coverage up to $25,000. Claims against the insurer were filed on January 8, 1963. The testimony is that 'in the summer' of 1963, Country Mutual advised that it would not pay the claims. The defendants, as attorneys of record for the administrators, filed demands for arbitration on April 21, 1965.

In the hearing before the arbitrator, the issues of wilful and wanton conduct by the driver, contributory wilful and wanton conduct of the decedents and proximate cause were presented. The arbitrator awarded $17,500 to the administrator of Brown's estate and $16,000 to the administrator of Wattles' estate. The arbitrator's awards were entered on September 20, 1966, and were subsequently vacated in the circuit court on March 8, 1968, upon the sole ground that the demands for arbitration were not filed within two years from the death of the decedents as required by the Injuries Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, ch. 70, pars. 1 and 2.) This court affirmed in Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat. Bank of Decatur and Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wattles, 109 Ill.App.2d 133, 248 N.E.2d 299.

Upon denial of a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, the mandate of this court was issued on December 18, 1969. On or about January 13, 1970, the administrators were notified by defendants that the proceedings could be deemed terminated and that there would be no recovery upon the wrongful death claims by the estates. Prior to that time defendants had assured the administrators that their legalposition was sound, and that, 'in defendants' opinion' they would eventually prevail. On May 22, 1970, defendants withdrew as attorneys for the administrator of Brown's estate, and the latter retained new counsel. On April 14, 1971, new counsel was retained by the administrator of Wattles' estate.

Complaints against the defendants were filed by the respective administrators alleging that defendants negligently and carelessly failed to file a demand for arbitration within two years of May 14, 1962, and that by reason of the negligence of defendants, the plaintiffs, as administrators, and the heirs of the decedents have lost the value of the arbitrator's awards. The respective actions for malpractice were filed on October 20, 1970 and April 20, 1971.

Upon this appeal, defendants claim that the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential elements of their claims, i.e., the wilful and wanton conduct of the driver, Campbell; that decedents were free from contributory misconduct of like quality, and that Campbell's conduct was the proximate cause of the respective deaths. It is said that such proof is necessary to establish that had the defendants filed the demands for arbitration within the two year period the plaintiffs would have been legally entitled to recover under the contractual terms of the respective insurance policies. It is dontended that since the arbitration findings were vacated, such are now a legal nullity and that nothing in this record shows that plaintiffs were entitled to recover.

Plaintiffs contend that in this malpractice action they need only allege and prove that the arbitrator had decided in favor of plaintiffs upon the essential elements of recovery. The trial court stated that he would conduct the trial upon the theory that if the claims for arbitration had been filed in time, the arbitrator's awards would be in effect and that such awards were lost by reason of the alleged negligence of defendants.

In an action for legal malpractice a plaintiff has the burden of showing the validity of the demand which he lost and that it could have been realized if the attorneys had not been negligent. (Goldzier v. Poole, 82 Ill.App. 469; Piper v. Green, 216 Ill.App. 590.) In Trustees of Schools v. Schroeder, 2 Ill.App.3d 1009, 278 N.E.2d 431, it is said that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that but for the negligence complained of, the client would have been successful in the prosecution or defense of the action in question.

In Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat. Bank of Decatur and Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wattles, 109 Ill.App.2d 133, 248 N.E.2d 299, it was determined that the claims filed in arbitration were barred by the expiration of the two year limitation provided in the Injuries Act, so that the arbitrator had no power or authority to do anything but deny the claims. The complaints alleged and the answers admitted that the policies of Country Mutual provided that the decision of the arbitrator was final and that no appeal could be taken therefrom, and that the only basis for the loss of the award was that the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction because the Statute of Limitations had expired.

Defendants, having prosecuted the claims for arbitration and procured the awards, come within the rule that they are estopped to deny a state of fact procured through their own conduct and acts. (Gebhardt v. Reeves, 75 Ill. 301.) It appears that the defendants continued to assert the validity of the awards throughout the proceedings before the arbitrator, in the circuit court and in the appellate Court and until the denial of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. Estoppel is defined as a bar or impediment raised by the law precluding a party from alleging or denying a state of facts as a consequence of his previous allegations or conduct. Black's Law Dictionary. It was not error to admit the arbitrator's awards into evidence.

Defendants contend, under their affirmative defense, that the causes of action were barred by the two year Statute of Limitations found in Ill.Rev.Stat. (1971), ch. 83, par. 15. Under such contention, the causes for malpractice accrued two years after decedents' deaths and the action would be barred on May 16, 1966. The statute relied upon by defendants provides that actions for 'damages for an injury to the person . . . shall be commenced within two years next after the cause of action accrued'. It has been held that the limitations of ch. 83, par. 15, applied only to those cases where defendant is suing for direct physical or mental injury. (Doerr v. Villate (1966), 74 Ill.App.2d 332, 220 N.E.2d 767.) In Johnson v. Hi-Way Dispatch, Inc., (E.D.Ill.1972) 352 F.Supp. 929 it was held that a suit for damages sustained by a family member by virtue of the personal injuries of a member of the family is not a suit for damages for injury to the person and subject to the two year statute provided. Rather, such cause of action falls within the class of 'civil actions not otherwise provided for', as found in Ill.Rev.Stat. (1971), ch. 83, par. 16. In Maloney v. Graham (1912), 171 Ill.App. 409, the five year Statute of Limitations now found in ch. 83,...