Fogt v. 1-800-Pack-Rat, LLC
2017 IL App (1st) 150383
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Isaac and Lisa Fogt rented a Pack‑Rat storage container (delivered Feb 27, 2009) and later moved without providing Pack‑Rat written change‑of‑address or updated credit card info; payments stopped and Pack‑Rat sent an August 28, 2009 certified notice that was returned unclaimed.
- Pack‑Rat (1‑800‑Pack‑Rat, LLC) and Waste Management entities (WMS, WM Pack‑Rat, WM IL, WMI, WM Storage) had a web of agreements: WMS and Pack‑Rat formed WM Pack‑Rat; WM Pack‑Rat formed WM Pack‑Rat of Illinois (WM IL) to operate Illinois facilities; WMI was a guarantor under a Definitive Agreement but not an operating partner.
- WM IL sold the Fogts’ stored property at auction Sept. 18, 2009; buyer resold items the next day, frustrating recovery.
- Plaintiffs sued asserting (inter alia) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/2) based on noncompliance with the Self‑Service Storage Facility Act (770 ILCS 95/4), conversion, replevin, and sought to hold various Waste Management entities liable for WM IL’s acts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Consumer Fraud Act and punitive damages claims, denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment on those counts, dismissed WMI from conversion liability, and left WM Pack‑Rat’s liability for WM IL unresolved. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by failing to comply with the Storage Act and their own procedures | Failure to follow Storage Act notice/timing and internal procedures is an unfair practice causing consumer injury | Notices were sent to last known address; plaintiffs failed to provide required written change‑of‑address and to update credit card, so defendants’ practices did not proximately cause loss | Summary judgment for defendants; no Consumer Fraud Act liability (lack of proximate causation and not oppressive) |
| Whether WMI is liable for WM IL’s conversion via joint venture theory | WMI participated in a joint venture with Pack‑Rat (per Definitive Agreement) and thus is liable for WM IL | WMI was only a guarantor/affiliate under the Definitive Agreement and did not share joint control or profits/losses | Summary judgment for defendants: WMI not liable as a matter of law (no joint venture) |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages for conversion | Failure to implement/state‑law‑compliant procedures and training shows willful or wanton conduct warranting punitive damages | Conduct was negligent or poor judgment, not willful/wanton or morally outrageous | Summary judgment for defendants: punitive damages unavailable (no willful and wanton misconduct) |
| Whether WM Pack‑Rat is liable for WM IL (cross‑motions on veil/joint liability) | Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that WM Pack‑Rat is liable for WM IL’s acts | Defendants opposed; trial court denied both cross‑motions | Court lacked jurisdiction to decide on appeal because both cross‑motions were denied (not final/appealable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubey v. Public Storage, Inc., 395 Ill. App. 3d 342 (Ill. App. Ct.) (unfair practice and punitive damages analysis in storage‑unit auction context)
- Hill v. PS Illinois Trust, 368 Ill. App. 3d 310 (Ill. App. Ct.) (Consumer Fraud Act and lien sale notice issues)
- Daniels v. Corrigan, 382 Ill. App. 3d 66 (Ill. App. Ct.) (elements and factors for finding a joint venture)
- Loitz v. Remington Arms Co., 138 Ill. 2d 404 (Ill.) (standards for punitive damages; willful and wanton conduct)
- Cruthis v. Firstar Bank, N.A., 354 Ill. App. 3d 1122 (Ill. App. Ct.) (conversion may be shown without supporting punitive damages where conduct is negligence/lack of judgment)
- Jensen v. Chicago & Western Indiana R.R. Co., 94 Ill. App. 3d 915 (Ill. App. Ct.) (negligent/mistaken belief in contractual right to dispose of property does not warrant punitive damages)
- Saunders v. Michigan Avenue Nat. Bank, 278 Ill. App. 3d 307 (Ill. App. Ct.) (contract terms govern reasonable expectations regarding remedies and notifications)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill.) (proximate causation requirement for Consumer Fraud Act damages)
- Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d 281 (Ill.) (standard of review for summary judgment)