April 2010 Case Notes & Comments

“The secret is to have 8 great players and 4 others who will cheer like crazy." ~ Jerry Tarkanian, Basketball Coach

MONTHLY QUIZ: CONTACT SPORTS EXCEPTION: Plaintiff allegedly sustained injury when member of Springfield Stallions, an indoor football team, ran out of bounds, fell over a wall separating spectators from the playing field, and collided with plaintiff. Plaintiff contended that the accident was the result of the negligent acts and omissions of defendants who operated and possessed the arena. Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that, because football was a contact sport where violent collisions are inherent, cases such as Karas v. Strevell and Pfister v. Shusta require plaintiffs to plead a greater culpability than mere negligence. Query: Does the contact sports exception apply to spectators at an indoor football game? You be the judge. (Answer below).

 

IL SUPREME COURT: POLICY PROVISIONS EXCLUDING UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE TO VEHICLE OCCUPANTS ARE VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE UNDER ILLINOIS LAW: Two declaratory judgment actions presenting same issue - whether Illinois law permits insurers to issue motor vehicle liability policies that afford occupants uninsured motorist (UM) coverage but exclude underinsured (UIM) coverage - were consolidated for appeal. With regard to UM coverage, respective policy definitions of “insured person” and “insured” included vehicle occupants. However, with regard to UIM coverage, both policies purported to limit UIM coverage to the person to whom the policy was issued, or a family member. The definition of “insured person” in the UIM coverage for the first policy also omitted occupants of the car. Under Illinois law, motor vehicle liability policies must provide UM and UIM coverages to permissive “users” of covered vehicles, which the high court held to include both occupants and drivers. Further, Illinois Supreme Court held that Section 143a–2 of Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143a–2 (West 2002)) precluded insurers from defining insureds differently for purposes of UIM and UM coverage. The policies, therefore, contravened Illinois law and were void and unenforceable. Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance, --- N.E.2d ---, 2010 WL 966206, (IL.S.Ct. Mar. 18, 2010)

 

PATHOLOGIST’S TESTIMONY CREATES AN ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT: Defendant, a 72 year-old car salesman, used his company car to visit a girlfriend in Decatur. While driving, defendant either "went to sleep" or “blacked out,” swerved over the centerline and caused an accident – which was found to be prima facie negligence. Despite reportedly not feeling well, defendant refused medical treatment following the accident and was later found dead at his home. Pathologist who performed autopsy opined that the loss of consciousness was due to a “Stokes Adams attack,” which was caused by a heart attack 7-10 days before the accident. Defendants contended that salesman’s loss of consciousness was an “unforeseeable and unpreventable” act-of-God, while Plaintiff maintained that salesman would have experienced pain following his heart attack, which he negligently ignored. In reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment, 4th District held that, under the circumstances, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether accident was a result of defendant’s negligence, or an “act of God.” Evans v. Brown, --- N.E.2d --- , 2010 WL 1206870, (4th Dist. Mar. 23, 2010)

 

ARBITRATION PANEL WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO AWARD ATTORNEYS’ FEES UNDER SECTION 155 OF ILLINOIS INSURANCE CODE: Arbitration panel award of attorneys’ fees under Section 155 of Illinois Insurance Code relating to a claim for insured’s vexatious and unreasonable failure to pay certain claims, was in error, as Insurance Code only authorizes a “court” to award attorneys’ fees under that section. Amerisure Mutual Insurance v. Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, --- N.E.2d --- , 2010 WL 960339 (1st Dist. Mar. 15, 2010)

 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Plaintiff wins! The contact sports exception does not apply. Plaintiff’s status as a spectator, rather than a participant, makes cases like Karas, Pfister, in which the plaintiffs were participants in contact sports, fundamentally distinguishable. Pickel v. Springfield Stallions, et al. --- N.E.2d --- , 2010 WL 1205959, (4th Dist. Mar. 23, 2010)

Past Publications

2024

March 2024
January 2024

2023

December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023

2022

December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022

2021

December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021

2020

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020

2019

December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019

2018

December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

2017

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017

2016

December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016

2015

December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

2014

December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014

2013

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013

2012

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012

2011

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011

2010

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

2009

December 2009