Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. v. Prudence Mut. Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1960
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 47798
• Citation: 166 N.E.2d 316,25 Ill.App.2d 429
• Parties: MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. PRUDENCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, as successor to Regal Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 316

166 N.E.2d 316

25 Ill.App.2d 429

MUTUAL SERVICE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. PRUDENCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, as

successor to Regal Mutual Insurance Company, a

corporation, Appellee.

Gen. No. 47798.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

April 14, 1960.

O'Brien, Hanrahan & Been, Chicago (Delbert T. Been, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Chicago (Zachary D. Ford, Jr., Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

FRIEND, Justice.

On October 1, 1956, near Bateman, Wisconsin, Andrew Schomner was injured while riding as a passenger in a truck owned and operated by Joseph Blazek, a resident of Illinois, which was insured by defendant, an Illinois insurance company. The other vehicle involved in the accident was the property of the Chippewa County (Wisconsin) Highway Department and was insured by plaintiff, a Minnesota insurance company. After ascertaining the nature of Schomner's claims against all parties, plaintiff insurance company voluntarily paid Schomner $3,500 by way of settlement and then brought suit in the Municipal Court of Chicago for contribution of one-half that amount from defendant, the Illinois insurance company. The court allowed defendant's motion to strike the statement of claim, and entered the judgment of dismissal, from which plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff predicates its right to contribution on sections 113.01-113.05 of a Wisconsin statute known as the Uniform Joint Obligations Act (Wisconsin Statutes 1956) which provides in effect that a person who is or may become liable for a joint tort obligation may recover contribution from a joint tortfeasor or obligor. No statutory right or remedy similar to the Wisconsin statute exists in the State of Illinois. The laws of the respective states are in conflict. In Dougherty v. American McKenna Process Co., 255 Ill. 369, at page 372, 99 N.E. 619, at page 621, L.R.A.1915F, 955, the approach to the problem is thus stated:

'Each state, subject to restrictions of the federal Constitution, determines the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts, the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them, and how far its courts having jurisdiction of the parties shall hear and decide transitory actions where the cause of action has arisen outside of the state.'

The rule with respect to causes of action arising outside a state, as set forth in Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Ware, 8 Cir., 15 F.2d 171, at page 173, is as follows:

'The general rule as to the pursuit in the courts of other states or of the nation of rights created by a state is subject to the limitation that the right sought to be enforced is not inconsistent with any local or public policy of the state where suit is brought in its courts to enforce the right, or with the public policy of the United States if suit is brought in the federal courts.'

In 15 C.J.S. Conflict of Laws § 4, p. 853, the author says:

'It is thoroughly established as a broad general rule that foreign law or rights based thereon will not be given effect or enforced if opposed to the settled public policy of the forum.'

Later in the section the rule is amplified in the following language (p. 858) 'Special statutory remedy. Where a purely statutory right is created, and a special remedy for the enforcement of the right is also provided by the statute, the statutory remedy must be pursued, and the right will not be enforced in another jurisdiction...