Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Kribbs
2016 IL App (1st) 160672
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Guarantee Trust entered a reinsurance arrangement with Somerset (formed by agent Robert Kribbs) under which premiums were placed in a custodial account; Guarantee later alleged Kribbs arranged improper disbursements depleting funds for claims.
- Guarantee sued Kribbs in 2006 (conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive fraud, concert of action, conspiracy) and alleged an unnamed Guarantee employee was required to approve withdrawals.
- In 2008 Kribbs identified several persons with knowledge, including Guarantee employees Larry Graves and Keith Lindvig. No depositions of those employees were taken until 2012.
- After depositions in 2012 revealed Graves’s and Lindvig’s more direct involvement (kickbacks, letters authorizing disbursements), Guarantee voluntarily dismissed and refiled in 2013, adding Graves and Lindvig as defendants.
- Graves and Lindvig moved to dismiss under section 2-619 as time-barred by the five-year limitations period (735 ILCS 5/13-205). The trial court granted dismissal, finding Guarantee knew enough earlier to investigate and that fraudulent concealment/fiduciary exceptions did not save the claims.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: the discovery rule did not delay accrual to the 2012 depositions; Guarantee failed to plead actionable fraudulent concealment or the causal link required for fiduciary silence to toll the statute; equitable doctrines were forfeited or inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Guarantee's Argument | Graves/Lindvig's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the statute of limitations accrue (discovery rule)? | Accrual tolled until 9/26/2012 when discovery revealed Lindvig received kickbacks and raised suspicion of Graves. | Accrual occurred no later than filing of 2006 complaint (or earlier discovery), so claims expired by 12/13/2011. | Accrual occurred when Guarantee knew or should have known of the injury and its wrongful cause; facts show Guarantee had sufficient information earlier—claims time‑barred. |
| Does Mitsias-style tolling apply where a second source/defendant was unknowable? | Mitsias supports tolling when plaintiff knew one cause but could not have known another source of injury. | Mitsias is inapposite; here Guarantee knew an employee was involved and had names disclosed in 2008. | Mitsias does not help Guarantee; it could have discovered defendants with reasonable diligence. |
| Does fraudulent concealment (735 ILCS 5/13-215) or fiduciary silence toll limitations? | Graves and Lindvig were fiduciaries whose silence and alleged document destruction fraudulently concealed their roles, excusing investigation. | Allegations are conclusory; fraudulent concealment requires affirmative acts (or fiduciary disclosure plus causal link) and was not pled. | Dismissal affirmed: Guarantee failed to plead specific affirmative concealment or the required causal link that trust/reliance prevented discovery. |
| Are equitable doctrines (equitable estoppel/tolling; action in equity) applicable? | Equitable tolling/estoppel prevent limitations defense; claims for restitution may be equitable. | These arguments were forfeited below and, in any event, do not apply because relief sought was legal and Guarantee failed to show reliance or extraordinary barrier. | Forfeited and meritless: claims sought money relief (legal), no facts showing reliance or extraordinary barrier—equitable arguments fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (Ill. 1981) (articulates discovery rule: limitations run when plaintiff knows or reasonably should know injury and wrongful cause)
- Hagney v. Lopeman, 147 Ill. 2d 458 (Ill. 1992) (fraudulent concealment generally requires affirmative acts and pleading of causal trust/reliance)
- DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49 (Ill. 2006) (section 13-215 tolls where fraud prevented discovery of cause of action)
- Ostendorf v. Int’l Harvester Co., 89 Ill. 2d 273 (Ill. 1982) (false or misleading discovery responses can constitute affirmative concealment)
- McCormick v. Uppuluri, 250 Ill. App. 3d 386 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (ignorance of a particular actor’s role does not necessarily toll limitations where records identify the actor)