Carmichael v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
121 N.E.3d 963
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Mary Carmichael, a Union Pacific employee, was injured as a passenger in a six‑person van operated by Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI) and settled with the negligent driver for the $20,000 policy limit.
- PTI’s insurer (ACE) provided multimillion dollar liability limits but only minimum UM/UIM coverage ($20,000/$40,000), not the $250,000 per‑passenger UM/UIM coverage required by the 2006 amendment to 625 ILCS 5/8‑101(c) for contract carriers transporting employees in vehicles designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers.
- Carmichael sued PTI seeking the difference between her $20,000 recovery and the $250,000 statutory UIM minimum, alleging PTI violated section 8‑101(c) and that a private right of action exists to enforce that provision.
- PTI defended that no private right of action may be implied from section 8‑101(c) and counterclaimed, challenging the amendment’s constitutionality; the State intervened to defend the statute.
- The trial court held the statute survived constitutional challenge and that a private right of action existed; PTI appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim. The appellate court instead addressed whether an implied private right of action exists.
Issues
| Issue | Carmichael's Argument | PTI's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private right of action can be implied from 625 ILCS 5/8‑101(c) allowing passengers to recover statutory UM/UIM minimums | Carmichael: statute protects passengers and thus supports an implied private remedy to recover the $250,000 UIM minimum | PTI: no private remedy is implied because the Vehicle Code provides criminal and regulatory enforcement mechanisms (e.g., Class A misdemeanor, registration suspension) making an implied remedy unnecessary; constitutional challenges should be addressed only if private right exists | Court: No private right of action implied. The statute’s enforcement framework (criminal penalties and Secretary of State regulatory sanctions) makes an implied private remedy unnecessary; Carmichael’s claim should have been dismissed. |
| Whether court must resolve constitutional challenges to the statute | Carmichael: (implicitly) if private right exists, constitutional issues matter | PTI: constitutional issues were raised but are unnecessary if no private right exists | Court: Constitutional challenges are moot given absence of an implied private right; affirmed dismissal of PTI’s counterclaim as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (statute with enforcement mechanisms does not necessarily support an implied private right of action)
- Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455 (declining to imply private cause of action where statute contains mechanisms to encourage reporting and punish violations)
- People v. Waid, 221 Ill. 2d 464 (courts should avoid resolving constitutional questions unnecessary to disposition)
- Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos, 187 Ill. 2d 386 (necessity element controls inquiry into implied private rights of action)
- Rekosh v. Parks, 316 Ill. App. 3d 58 (examples of declining to imply private remedies where statutory sanctions exist)
- Cochran v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017 IL 121200 (noting limits on remedies in related statutory contexts)