Brown v. Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp.
2017 IL App (1st) 161918
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Joyce Hobson died after hospitalization at Advocate South Suburban Hospital; her estate (Anthony Brown) sued for medical malpractice.
- Plaintiff sought production of Advocate’s insurance-related documents; Advocate claimed it was self‑insured and initially refused production.
- The circuit court ordered Advocate to produce its self‑insured trust agreement and related endorsements for in camera inspection and entered a protective order limiting disclosure.
- Advocate continued to resist production, requested a "friendly contempt" finding to secure an interlocutory appeal, and the circuit court fined Advocate $100 for contempt.
- Advocate appealed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)(5), challenging (1) discoverability of insurance documents, (2) characterization of the trust as confidential financial material, and (3) the contempt finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Advocate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insurance / self‑insured trust documents are discoverable in the malpractice action | Insurance/trust documents are discoverable because they relate to collectability and may lead to admissible evidence | Insurance evidence is generally inadmissible at trial; self‑insured trust is confidential financial information and not an insurance policy | Court upheld discovery scope: insurance‑related documents (including the trust) may be subject to in camera review and possible production |
| Whether the trust agreement is a confidential financial document outside discovery (Manns issue) | The trust functions like insurance for injured parties and is therefore distinguishable from purely private financial records | Trust is proprietary, contains trade secrets and internal financial formulas, and should be protected from pre‑judgment disclosure | Court rejected Advocate’s Manns-based claim and ordered in camera review to assess relevance and confidentiality |
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by ordering in camera inspection | In camera review is appropriate to resolve disputes over document nature and relevance | In camera review is improper because documents are confidential and irrelevant | Court held in camera inspection was a proper exercise of discretion |
| Whether Advocate’s refusal justified contempt/fine | Plaintiff sought contempt to obtain an immediately appealable order | Advocate argued its refusal was made in good faith based on legal objections and sought friendly contempt to appeal | Court affirmed discovery order but vacated the contempt finding and $100 fine as Advocate’s refusal was made in good faith to pursue interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Terry v. Fisher, 12 Ill.2d 231 (discovery of liability insurance may be compelled because insurance exists to satisfy liability and is relevant to case preparation)
- Manns v. Briell, 349 Ill. App.3d 358 (distinguishing discovery of personal financial records from insurance policies)
- Anderson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 101 Ill. App.3d 596 (where document nature is disputed, court may order in camera inspection or contemn for noncompliance)
- Chicago Trust Co. v. Cook County Hospital, 298 Ill. App.3d 396 (vacating contempt where defendant’s refusal to produce documents was not contemptuous)
- Seldin v. Babendir, 325 Ill. App.3d 1058 (insurance information generally inadmissible at trial — cited for contrast between admissibility and discoverability)
- Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351 (insurance policy production recognized in discovery context)
- Schultz v. Continental Casualty Co., 79 Ill. App.3d 1035 (reversing denial of production of complete insurance policy)