Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough
2014 IL 114271
| Ill. | 2014Background
- Kiferbaum Construction’s personal injury case involved insurers Evanston, Steadfast, CNA, and Statewide with a Fund and Fight Agreement for settlement funding.
- Evanston sued Riseborough defendants in 2005 for breach of implied warranty of authority, fraud, and misrepresentation arising from defendants’ signing of the Fund and Fight Agreement on Kiferbaum’s behalf.
- The circuit court dismissed Evanston’s claims as premature; the appellate court reversed, holding the repose did not apply because Evanston wasn’t a client seeking legal malpractice.
- Evanston later filed a second amended complaint asserting damages including the funded $1 million and related costs.
- The circuit court then dismissed the second amended complaint as time-barred under section 13-214.3; the appellate court affirmed, and this court granted review.
- The central issue is whether the six-year repose for actions against attorneys in the performance of professional services applies to Evanston’s nonclient claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 13-214.3 to nonclients | Evanston argues the statute targets attorney malpractice and is not limited to clients. | Riseborough contends the statute broad enough to bar all claims arising from professional services. | The court holds 13-214.3 applies to all claims arising from professional services by attorneys, including nonclient actions. |
| Relation of statute to attorney-client relationship | Statute should not bar nonclient claims absent an attorney-client relationship. | Statute applies when action arises from attorney-provided professional services, regardless of client status. | Statute applies broadly to acts in the performance of professional services, regardless of whether a client-attorney relationship exists. |
| Timeliness of second amended complaint | If repose expired after 2000, the second amended complaint filed in 2009 could be timely. | Second amended complaint is time-barred by the six-year repose from the 2000 act. | Second amended complaint is time-barred under 13-214.3. |
| Prematurity of earlier complaints | Original/first amended complaints were premature and should not trigger repose. | Repose runs from the act, regardless of premature filings. | Prematurity arguments forfeited; repose governs retroactively. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ganci v. Blauvelt, 294 Ill. App. 3d 508 (Ill. App. 1998) (limits on professional duties to clients; supports narrow reading of 13-214.3)
- Hayes v. Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, 136 Ill. 2d 450 (Ill. 1990) (broad interpretation of medical repose to third-party claims; informs intent of repose statutes)
- Uldrych v. VHS of Illinois, Inc., 239 Ill. 2d 532 (Ill. 2011) (statute interpretation de novo; related to repose applicability)
- Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. McDermott International, Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 603 (Ill. App. 2006) (statute application to nontraditional contexts; supports broadarising-from interpretation)
- Cotton v. Private Bank & Trust Co., No official reporter citation listed here (Ill. App. 2004) (unambiguous scope limited to attorney malpractice claims)