Catledge v. Dowling
2017 IL App (1st) 162033
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Catledge’s homeowners policy was cancelled by Nationwide because the insured property entered foreclosure; he requested a Department of Insurance hearing.
- A Department hearing officer issued a recommended decision finding the cancellation lawful; the Acting Director adopted that recommendation and entered a final order on July 28, 2015. The order advised parties they could petition for rehearing under 50 Ill. Adm. Code 2402.280.
- Catledge filed a complaint for judicial review in Cook County circuit court on August 19, 2015, without first seeking rehearing from the Department.
- The Department defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9), arguing Catledge failed to exhaust administrative remedies (no rehearing motion within 10 days) and failed to file an affidavit required by the Administrative Review Law.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (failure to exhaust administrative remedies). Catledge appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Catledge’s failure to seek rehearing under 50 Ill. Adm. Code 2402.280(c) barred judicial review; the court rejected arguments that rehearing was unnecessary because the same hearing officer would decide it or that exhaustion exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to review the Director’s order absent a prior motion for rehearing | Catledge argued he was not required to file for rehearing before seeking judicial review | Department argued Catledge failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a rehearing/reopen motion under 50 Ill. Adm. Code 2402.280(c) | Held: No jurisdiction—Catledge failed to exhaust; rehearing required before judicial review |
| Whether rehearing requirement is excused because the same hearing officer/panel would decide any rehearing | Catledge argued rehearing would be futile because the same hearing officer would rehear the matter, producing no different result | Department argued the rule requires rehearing regardless who would conduct it; agency could correct errors on rehearing | Held: Rehearing not excused; identity of rehearing decisionmaker does not excuse exhaustion (Grigoleit distinguished; Shapo followed) |
| Whether any Castaneda exhaustion exceptions applied (e.g., futility, agency lacks authority, irreparable harm) | Catledge invoked general exceptions to exhaustion and asserted futility | Department argued exceptions do not apply where an available rehearing remedy exists and is not futile | Held: Exceptions inapplicable—Catledge did not show futility or other applicable exception; exhaustion required |
| Other procedural and sanction claims (e.g., Rule 137, filing stamps, Nationwide’s default) | Catledge alleged fraud on the court, Rule 137 sanctions, filing defects, and defaults by Nationwide | Department argued procedural challenges irrelevant because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is dispositive | Held: Court declined to address these claims because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 132 Ill. 2d 304 (1989) (establishes exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine for administrative-review statutes)
- Shapo v. Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Guaranty Ass’n, 357 Ill. App. 3d 122 (2005) (applies Castaneda; requires rehearing under 50 Ill. Adm. Code 2402.280 to preserve judicial-review rights)
- Grigoleit v. Pollution Control Board, 245 Ill. App. 3d 337 (1993) (held rehearing unnecessary where a full board’s decision would be reheard by a smaller panel of the same board; distinguished here)
- Rockford Memorial Hospital v. Department of Human Rights, 272 Ill. App. 3d 751 (1995) (lists limited exceptions to exhaustion doctrine)