Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 4-97-0488

Citation294 Ill.App.3d 801,690 N.E.2d 1067,229 Ill.Dec. 20
Decision Date09 February 1998
Docket NumberNo. 4-97-0488,4-97-0488
Parties, 229 Ill.Dec. 20 Katherine RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AAA AEROSTAR, INC., d/b/a Rally's Restaurant, Defendant (State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Garnishee-Appellee).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Carol J. Reid (argued), Springfield, for Katherine Rice.

David L. Drake (argued), Matthew D. Bilinsky, Drake, Narup & Mead, P.C., Springfield, for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company.

Justice COOK delivered the opinion of the court:

This case presents the question whether an insurance company can avoid payment of a claim because it was not given notice that suit had been filed, although it was given notice of the occurrence. We reject plaintiff's argument that the insurer's awareness of the potential for lawsuit gave the insurer notice sufficient for it to locate and defend the suit. Nevertheless, we reverse the summary judgment entered for the insurer, because the insurer's affidavit did not negate the possibility that the insurer had actual notice.

On July 7, 1992, plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by defendant, AAA Aerostar, Inc., d/b/a Rally's Restaurant. At the time of the fall, plaintiff was 8 1/2 months pregnant. Defendant's insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), was notified of the incident. In August 1992, State Farm advised plaintiff that for a period of one year all reasonable medical expenses were covered under the medical payments provisions of defendant's insurance policy. In September 1992, plaintiff retained Florence L. Bain to prosecute a personal injury claim against defendant. State Farm investigated the claim and, during the interim, paid approximately $4,375 in medical expenses.

In March 1993, upon completing its investigation, State Farm denied liability on the part of defendant. In response to State Farm's denial, Bain wrote State Farm a letter outlining plaintiff's potential legal claim and offering settlement terms. In September 1993, State Farm took plaintiff's statement regarding the incident. State Farm again denied liability. In a status report dated December 1993, State Farm's claim representative, Pamela Woodson, noted that the only work remaining on the claim was defending a potential lawsuit. However, in January 1994, State Farm closed its file because plaintiff had not yet filed suit. The two-year statute of limitations would run July 7, 1994. See 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (West 1992).

In early 1994, State Farm was contacted by plaintiff's second attorney, Patricia Hayes. Hayes, via a representation letter, advised State Farm she was now representing plaintiff and had a lien on all money recovered by suit, settlement or otherwise. Once again, State Farm denied liability, and after numerous attempts to contact Hayes, State Farm again closed the file, in February 1994. In June 1994, Hayes, on plaintiff's behalf, filed a complaint against defendant for negligence. In December 1994, the trial court entered a default judgment against defendant. In September 1995, the court entered a final order awarding plaintiff $48,500 plus costs.

At some point prior to the entry of judgment defendant filed bankruptcy, thereby preventing plaintiff from collecting from defendant on the judgment. In January 1996, plaintiff sought to garnish defendant's insurance fund. In February 1996, State Farm moved for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 1994)). State Farm argued its policy required written notice of all lawsuits filed against its insured. Because neither its insured nor plaintiff notified State Farm of the lawsuit, the policy was breached and plaintiff could not collect from the insurance fund. In April 1996, State Farm requested plaintiff admit she and her attorney failed to notify State Farm of the suit. The request to admit went unanswered.

In July 1996, Hayes withdrew from the case. Subsequently, another attorney appeared on behalf of plaintiff and later withdrew. In January 1997, plaintiff, via her fourth attorney, responded to State Farm's request and admitted she never contacted State Farm regarding the lawsuit; however, she was uncertain whether Hayes or Hayes' associates contacted State Farm. In conjunction with the admission, the court granted plaintiff leave to respond to State Farm's summary judgment motion.

In February 1997, State Farm took Hayes' deposition. In her deposition, Hayes admitted she never advised State Farm of the lawsuit filed against defendant and she was unsure whether anyone in her office contacted State Farm. Additionally, her records did not indicate whether State Farm was ever notified of the lawsuit. State Farm offered plaintiff's admissions and Hayes' deposition as evidence supporting its summary judgment motion. State Farm also submitted interrogatories answered by Michael Beaman, a State Farm claim supervisor, and an affidavit, signed by Beaman, outlining State Farm's knowledge of the lawsuit. The affidavit stated State Farm "was not informed by [p]laintiff, [p]laintiff's attorney, any representative of [p]laintiff or any entity that [defendant] had been served with summons" for the lawsuit. In a similar fashion, Beaman's affidavit also denied State Farm was informed of the motion for default judgment, the hearing on the motion for default judgment, the motion to set damages, or the hearing to set damages. Beaman's interrogatories denied State Farm received a copy of plaintiff's complaint against defendant.

In response to State Farm's motion, plaintiff argued State Farm had actual notice of the lawsuit via settlement negotiations conducted prior to suit being filed. Plaintiff relied on written statements made by Woodson, the claim representative, as evidence that State Farm had knowledge of the lawsuit. Woodson's reports stated plaintiff was threatening to file suit and a lawsuit was possible; therefore, plaintiff argued State Farm was aware of the potential for a lawsuit and should have checked with plaintiff, defendant, or the clerk of the court to determine whether the suit had been filed. In May 1997, the court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Plain tiff appeals.

In ruling upon a summary judgment motion, the evidence is reviewed de novo and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Walker v. Rogers, 272 Ill.App.3d 86, 89, 208 Ill.Dec. 815, 817, 650 N.E.2d 272, 274 (1995), citing Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill.2d 511, 518, 190 Ill.Dec. 758, 762, 622 N.E.2d 788, 792 (1993). Summary judgment is properly entered when the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the movant to judgment as a matter of law. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 1994). The movant may be granted summary judgment in two instances: (1) when the movant affirmatively disproves the nonmovant's case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (see Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill.2d 229, 240-41, 95 Ill.Dec. 305, 309, 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986)), or (2) when the movant can establish the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273 (1986); Kimbrough v. Jewel Cos., 92 Ill.App.3d 813, 817, 48 Ill.Dec. 297, 300, 416 N.E.2d 328, 331 (1981)). See also 4 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 40.3, at 271-72 (1989) (Civil Procedure Before Trial).

In this case, State Farm, via its motion for summary judgment, attempts to affirmatively disprove plaintiff's case by establishing it never received notice of the lawsuit against its insured. As the movant, State Farm bears the burden of persuasion and the initial burden of production. See Carruthers v. B.C. Christopher & Co., 57 Ill.2d 376, 380, 313 N.E.2d 457, 459 (1974). Only if State Farm satisfies its initial burden of production does the burden shift to plaintiff to present some factual basis that would arguably entitle her to a favorable judgment. See Carruthers, 57 Ill.2d at 380, 313 N.E.2d at 459; Bank of Waukegan v. Epilepsy Foundation of America, 163 Ill.App.3d 901, 906, 114 Ill.Dec. 943, 946, 516 N.E.2d 1337, 1340 (1987). Plaintiff is generally not required to file counteraffidavits or depositions in response to State Farm's summary judgment motion, but well-pleaded facts set forth in State Farm's affidavit must then be accepted as true. See Carruthers, 57 Ill.2d at 381, 313 N.E.2d at 460; Lappin v. Costello, 232 Ill.App.3d 1033, 1040, 174 Ill.Dec. 114, 119, 598 N.E.2d 311, 316 (1992).

Defendant's insurance policy requires that State Farm receive written notice of any legal actions brought against it. The policy states the following:

"3. Duties in the [e]vent of [o]ccurrence, [c]laim or [s]uit.

a. You must see to it that we are notified promptly of an occurrence that may result in a claim. Notice should include:

(1) how, when and where the occurrence took place; and

(2) the names and addresses of any injured persons and witnesses.

b. If a claim is made or suit is brought against any insured, you must see to it that we receive prompt written notice of the claim or suit.

c. You and any other involved insured must:

(1) immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or suit;

(2) authorize us to obtain records and other information;

(3) cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or suit; and (4) assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization that may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply.

d. Except at their own cost, no insureds will voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • AT&SF RY. CO. v. Stonewall Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 30, 2003
    ...insurer must prove prejudice to avoid coverage on account of a policyholder's delay in reporting a lawsuit. Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill. App. 3d 801, 690 N.E.2d 1067 (1998); Cincinnati Ins. v. Baur's Opera House, 296 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 694 N.E.2d 593 (1998). Writing in the Illinois ......
  • AAA Disposal Systems v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • January 12, 2005
    ...Founders Insurance Co. v. Barnett, 304 Ill.App.3d 602, 237 Ill.Dec. 605, 710 N.E.2d 28 (1999), and Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill.App.3d 801, 229 Ill.Dec. 20, 690 N.E.2d 1067 (1998), the insureds provided late notice of a lawsuit. In this case, plaintiffs provided late notice of an occ......
  • Fabiano v. City of Palos Hills
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 25, 2002
    ... ... App.3d at 933, 256 Ill.Dec. 652, 752 N.E.2d 532, quoting Rice" v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill.App.3d 801, 805, 229 Ill.Dec. 20, 690 N.E.2d 1067 (1998) ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 18, 2006
    ... ... 305 Ill.Dec. 533 ... COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, ... LIVORSI MARINE, INC., et al., Appellants ... No. 99807 ... Supreme Court of Illinois ... May 18, 2006 ... The companies found support for this argument in a line of cases beginning with Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill.App.3d 801, 229 Ill.Dec. 20, 690 N.E.2d 1067 (1998). The opinion in ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Business Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...2001). State Courts: Florida: Bankers Insurance Co. v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985). Illinois: Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill. App.3d 801, 690 N.E.2d 1067, 1072, 229 Ill. Dec. 20 (1998). Indiana: Sheehan Construction Co. v. Columbia Casualty Co., 938 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. 2010).......
  • CHAPTER 5 Comprehensive or Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance: Coverage A for "Bodily Injury" or "Property Damage" Liabilities
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance for Real Estate-Related Entities
    • Invalid date
    ...2001). State Courts: Florida: Bankers Insurance Co. v. Macias, 475 So.2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985). Illinois: Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill. App.3d 801, 690 N.E.2d 1067, 1072, 229 Ill. Dec. 20 (1998). Indiana: Sheehan Construction Co. v. Columbia Casualty Co., 938 N.E.2d 635 (Ind. 2010).......

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