The Hartford v. Doubler
| Decision Date | 22 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-382,81-382 |
| Citation | 61 Ill.Dec. 592,105 Ill.App.3d 999,434 N.E.2d 1189 |
| Parties | , 61 Ill.Dec. 592 THE HARTFORD, a Foreign Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald DOUBLER and Roberta Doubler, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Pamela M. Anderson and John V. Patton, Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Noe, Moline, for plaintiff-appellant.
R. Philip Steele, Massie & Steele, Alpha, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, The Hartford, brought this action against defendants, Ronald and Roberta Doubler, its insureds, to recover money it paid to them under a contract of insurance. The circuit court of Mercer County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
During the year of 1979, the plaintiff insured the defendants under a farmowners-ranchowners policy. This policy contained a coverage exclusion for loss of livestock while in a public sale barn.
On June 11, 1979, three steers belonging to the defendants were stolen from the Viola Livestock Sale Barn, Viola, Illinois. The next day, the defendants notified the Mercer County Sheriff's office and their insurance agent, of the loss. On both the Offense Report given to the Mercer County Sheriff and the Property Loss Notice given to the insurance agent, the defendants stated the loss occurred at the Viola Livestock Sale Barn.
The plaintiff, after receipt of the Property Loss Notice and the Offense Report, paid the defendants the sum of $1,795.00 for the loss of the three steers.
In September of 1979, an additional thirteen steers belonging to the defendants were stolen from the Viola Livestock Sale Barn. The defendants reported the loss to their local insurance carrier the following day and completed a second Property Loss Notice which again stated that the loss occurred at the Viola Livestock Sale Barn. This Property Loss Notice was forwarded to the plaintiff.
In addition, defendant, Ronald Doubler, was interviewed by Jana Cleveland, a claims adjustor for the plaintiff. During this interview Mr. Doubler again stated the steers were stolen from the sale barn. On October 12, 1979, the plaintiff paid defendants the sum of $6,013.25 for the loss of the thirteen steers.
Over a year later, the plaintiff instituted this law suit seeking reimbursement of the insurance monies paid the defendants for the loss of the livestock. The plaintiff alleged that the payments had been mistakenly made, in that Jana Cleveland had approved the claims without any knowledge of the public sale barn exclusion contained in the defendants' insurance policy.
The plaintiff and the defendants both filed motions for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court granted defendants motion for summary judgment and denied the motion of the plaintiff, stating that the payments by the plaintiff to the defendants were a mistake of law and that the plaintiff had waived the provisions of the insurance policy relating to the exclusion of coverage for livestock loss while in a public sale barn.
The plaintiff has raised the following issues for our review: 1) whether the plaintiff's mistaken payments of insurance monies to the defendants were a mistake of fact, entitling plaintiff to recovery of the monies, or a mistake of law, precluding any such recovery; and 2) whether the plaintiff's payments to the defendants under the contract of insurance constituted a waiver of the applicable policy exclusion.
It is a well established proposition of law that money paid under a mistake of fact can be recovered by the payor, however, money paid under a mistake of law cannot be so recovered. Groves v. Farmers State Bank (1937), 368 Ill. 35, 12 N.E.2d 618.
As to what constitutes a mistake of law, it has been held that an erroneous conclusion of the legal effect of known facts is a mistake of law and not of fact. Purvines v. Harrison (1894), 151 Ill. 219, 37 N.E. 705.
The defendants have relied on the case of Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Brueggeman (1944), 323 Ill.App. 173, 55 N.E.2d 719, in support of their position that the plaintiff's inadvertent payment to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez v. Smart Corp.
...Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 120 Ill.App.3d 998, 76 Ill.Dec. 355, 458 N.E.2d 1009 (1983); Hartford v. Doubler, 105 Ill. App.3d 999, 61 Ill.Dec. 592, 434 N.E.2d 1189 (1982). The voluntary payment doctrine provides that, absent fraud, misrepresentation or mistake of fact, money that is v......
-
Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum
...law is recoverable. (See Liberty Mutual, 141 Ill.App.3d at 804, 96 Ill.Dec. 318, 491 N.E.2d 132, citing Hartford v. Doubler (1982), 105 Ill.App.3d 999, 61 Ill.Dec. 592, 434 N.E.2d 1189; see also Commercial National Bank v. Bruno (1979), 75 Ill.2d 343, 350-51, 27 Ill.Dec. 351, 389 N.E.2d 163......
-
McIntosh v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.
...a mistake of law and not of fact. Purvines v. Harrison , 151 Ill. 219, 223, 37 N.E. 705 (1894) ; The Hartford v. Doubler , 105 Ill. App. 3d 999, 1001, 61 Ill.Dec. 592, 434 N.E.2d 1189 (1982). Because all persons are presumed to know the law, a mistake or misrepresentation of law will not av......
-
Yost v. American Overseas Marine Corp.
...e.g., Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Universal Ins. Co., 838 F.2d 612, 620 (1st Cir.1988); The Hartford v. Doubler, 105 Ill.App.3d 999, 61 Ill.Dec. 592, 594, 434 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (1982) (insurer is not entitled to restitution for mistaken payments); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Ownby, 40 Or.A......