People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher

Decision Date20 September 1957
Docket NumberNo. 34411,34411
Citation145 N.E.2d 588,12 Ill.2d 231
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois ex rel. Alveston TERRY, Petitioner, v. Harry M. FISHER, Judge of the Circuit Court, Respondent.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann & Hoban, Chicago (Oswell G. Treadway, Chicago, of counsel), for petitioner.

Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (L. Louis Karton, and Francis X. Riley, Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.

BRISTOW, Justice.

This is an original petition for mandamus on relation of Alveston Terry, the defendant in a personal injury suit pending in the circuit court of Cook County before the Honorable Harry M. Fisher, respondent herein, to compel respondent to expunge from the record of the personal injury cause certain orders requiring petitioner to answer discovery interrogatories respecting the existence and amount of his liability insurance.

The cause presents the single issue of whether, under the Civil Practice Act and Rules promulgated pursuant thereto, a defendant can be compelled to answer discovery interrogatories respecting the existence and amount of any liability insurance.

Petitioner contends that the circuit court exceeded its authority under the Civil Practice Act and Rules in requiring petitioner to respond to the said interrogatories, and that mandamus should issue to compel the respondent to expunge the void orders. Respondent, however, argues that the orders are within the scope of the Rules and constitute a proper part of the record.

The relevant section of the Civil Practice Act, section 58(1) ( Ill.Rev.Stat.1955, chap. 110, par. 58(1)), provides that, 'Discovery, admissions of fact and of genuineness of documents and answers to interrogatories shall be in accordance with rules.' Supreme Court Rule 101.19-11, relating to interrogatories, provides that they may be served within the same time and under the same circumstances as depositions may be taken, and Rule 101.19-4 defines the scope of examination on deposition. This latter Rule provides: 'Upon a discovery deposition, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, relating to the merits of the matter in litigation, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any documents or tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.'

With reference to the particular interrogatories involved herein, since the Illinois courts have not yet determined whether the existence and amount of defendant's insurance is discoverable under our Rules, a chronological review of the decisions and reasoning of the courts of other jurisdictions on this issue may be helpful.

In Goheen v. Goheen, 154 A. 393, 9 N.J.Misc. 507, the first case presenting this question, the New Jersey court, in 1933, without reference to any practice act, denied such interrogatories on the ground that they did not constitute material and competent evidence. In 1933 the Michigan court in Layton v. Cregan & Mallory Co., 263 Mich. 30, 248 N.W. 539, held that plaintiff was entitled to the production of defendant's insurance policy, since it might be relevant to the issue of disputed ownership of the automobile which collided with plaintiff's car. The court neither discussed the Goheen case, nor any rule of civil practice.

The California court in 1937, in Demaree v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.2d 99, 73 P.2d 605, 607, held that the provisions of defendant's insurance policy were germane to the petitioner's cause and material to their anticipated action against the insurance company 'when and if brought,' and that a sufficient basis was laid for the request for such information in the proceeding to perpetuate testimony.

In 1948 a Federal court in New York, in Orgel v. McCurdy, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 585, held that under Federal Rule 26(b), 28 U.S.C.A. plaintiff could examine defendant before trial on the matter of liability insurance, since it was not necessary to establish the admissibility of the testimony, but only that the information was relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Rule 26(b) provides: '* * * deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.'

The Orgel case was cited by the Federal district court in Tennessee in 1951 in Brackett v. Woodall Products, Inc., D.C., 12 F.R.D. 4, 6, where it was held that plaintiff could examine defendant's liability insurance policy under Federal Rules 34 and 26(b), on the ground that from the tenor and purpose of Federal and State legislation affecting liability insurance for the benefit of injured persons, such policies are relevant to the subject matter of pending actions growing out of accidents. The court stated: 'The court finds that it is material to the plaintiffs in the preparation of their cases for trial, that they be given an opportunity to inspect and, if desired to copy, the liability insurance policy as the policy provisions may afford the plaintiffs rights of which they would otherwise not be able to avail themselves.'

However, the following year, 1952, the Federal district court in Pennsylvania, disagreed with the interpretation of the Federal Rules in the Brackett case, and held that, although information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable, nevertheless, the insurance information could not be elicited on the ground that whatever advantage plaintiff might gain from the discovery of insurance had nothing to do with the presentation of the case at trial. McClure v. Boeger, D.C., 105 F. Supp. 612, 613. The court stated: 'Every argument that could be made in favor of requiring the disclosure could also be made in favor of compelling a defendant in any civil case tort or contract, to furnish the plaintiff with full information as to his financial resources.'

The same result was decreed by the Federal court in 1955 in McNelley v. Perry, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 360, where it was reasoned that since the insurance interrogatories could not be used in the trial, or lead to information which could be used in the trial, they were not proper.

Conflicting conclusions are also apparent in the State court decisions between 1951 and 1957. The California court in 1951, in Superior Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 749, 235 P.2d 833, reaffirmed its prior decision in the Demaree case, permitting plaintiff to elicit from defendant data respecting his liability insurance, and ordering the production of the policy itself.

The court rejected the arguments, also interposed by petitioner herein, that the production of the insurance policy would result in unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the constitution; and that knowledge of the policy limits would provide an undue and oppressive advantage in settlement negotiations. In that connection the court noted that whether such knowledge would benefit plaintiff or defendant depended upon the relationship between the seriousness of the injuries and the amount of insurance coverage. The court also explained that since a liability policy involves a contractual relation which is for the benefit of persons who might be negligently injured by the insured, the existence of the policy is not a matter for the sole knowledge of the named insured and the insurance carrier. Consequently, requiring the production of the policy in no way infringed the sanctity of a private contract.

A contrary ruling was made by the Nevada court in 1952 in State ex rel. Allen v. Second District Court, 69 Nev. 196, 245 P.2d 999, in a similar proceeding to perpetuate testimony.

In 1954 the Kentucky court, in a contempt proceeding for defendant's failure to answer whether or not he was insured in a pretrial examination, held that the question of insurance was relevant to a pretrial deposition, and within the spirit and meaning of rules identical to the Federal Rules 26-34. Maddox v. Grauman, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 939, 941. The court noted first that 'the question of relevancy is more loosely construed upon pre-trial examination than at the trial,' and that 'the Rule requires only relevancy to the subject matter involved in the action.' The court then reasoned that since the standard automobile liability insurance policy provides that persons injured by the negligence of the assured may institute proceedings against the carrier if a judgment against the assured is returned unsatisfied, consequently if the insurance is relevant after plaintiff prevails it is also relevant while the action pends. The insurance data was also deemed relevant by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Kim v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 30, 2021
  • Buck v. Alton Memorial Hospital, 79-116
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 9, 1980
    ... ... 1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 1053, 1055, 16 Ill.Dec. 424, 374 N.E.2d 1302; People ex rel. Scott v. Continental Can Co., Inc. (1st Dist. 1975), 28 ... Chamberlain (1966), 35 Ill.2d 351, 221 N.E.2d 410; People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher (1957), 12 Ill.2d 231, 236, 145 N.E.2d 588; Biehler v. White ... ...
  • Troyan v. Reyes
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 2006
    ... ... for cross-examination of the individual making the entries." People v. Wells, 80 Ill.App.2d 187, 194, 224 N.E.2d 288, 292 (1967). A custodian ... and opinions fall within business records exception); People ex rel. Schacht v. Main Insurance Co., 122 Ill.App.3d 826, 833, 78 Ill.Dec. 551, ... as to the real value of their claims and defenses ( People ex rel Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill.2d 231, 145 N.E.2d 588 (1957)); to enable attorneys to ... ...
  • Kaull v. Kaull
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 22, 2014
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...ex rel. Skinner v. Graham , 170 Ill App3d 417, 524 NE2d 642, 120 Ill Dec 612 (4th Dist 1988), §3:501 People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher , 12 Ill2d 231, 145 NE2d 588 (1957), §25:105 People ex rel. Vaugniaux v. City of Edwardsville , 284 Ill App3d 407, 672 NE2d 40, 219 Ill Dec 725 (5th Dist 1996)......
  • Interrogatories
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 12, 2014
    ...in the action, or would indemnify or reimburse payments made by a party to satisfy the judgment. [ People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher , 12 Ill 2d 231, 145 NE2d 588 (1957) (such interrogatories apprise plaintiffs of rights arising out of the action, give plaintiffs’ counsel a realistic appraisal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT