Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims
77 N.E.3d 1165
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Krozel, a DOI acting chief of staff, faced an EIG ethics complaint in 2008; the Attorney General declined to represent her due to conflict and she retained private counsel; the EIG voluntarily dismissed the matter in June 2010.
- Krozel requested indemnification for attorney fees under the Employee Indemnification Act; the Department of Revenue denied indemnification in April 2011.
- Krozel filed a claim in the Illinois Court of Claims on March 5, 2014 seeking reimbursement under the Indemnification Act.
- The State moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing the Court of Claims Act §22(h) two‑year limitations period barred the claim; Krozel argued §22(a)’s five‑year contract limitation applied because indemnification arose from her employment contract/statutory employment terms.
- The Court of Claims held the indemnification right arose from statute (not a contractual right), applied the two‑year limit, dismissed Krozel’s claim as untimely, and denied rehearing.
- Krozel sought certiorari review in circuit court claiming the Court of Claims misapplied the limitations period and thereby denied due process; the circuit court dismissed the certiorari complaint and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable limitations period for indemnification claim | Krozel: indemnification arises from employment contract/statutory terms → 5‑year §22(a) applies | State: indemnification is statutory remedy under Indemnification Act → 2‑year §22(h) applies | Court of Claims correctly treated it as statutory right; 2‑year period applied and claim was untimely |
| Whether Court of Claims deprived Krozel of due process by dismissing as untimely | Krozel: denial of rehearing/merits review deprived her of meaningful hearing | State: Krozel had multiple opportunities to present argument; timeliness is jurisdictional | Circuit court properly dismissed certiorari petition: Krozel had adequate notice and opportunities to be heard on timeliness; no due process violation |
| Whether certiorari may be used to review correctness of Court of Claims’ statutory interpretation | Krozel: Court of Claims misapplied law and merits should be reviewed | State: certiorari only reviews procedural/due process defects, not merits | Certiorari cannot be used to challenge correctness of merits; review limited to due process issues unless Court of Claims acts beyond authority |
| Whether Court of Claims exceeded its authority by construing Indemnification Act as noncontractual | Krozel: statute creates contractual/vested right | State: statute does not show clear legislative intent to create contract | Court of Claims relied on settled presumption that statutes do not create contractual rights absent clear intent; did not exceed authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d 499 (appellate court review of Court of Claims limited to due process; timeliness is jurisdictional)
- Reyes v. Court of Claims, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1097 (opportunity to be heard on timeliness satisfies due process)
- Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Court of Claims, 109 Ill. 2d 72 (certiorari available where Court of Claims deprives party of due process; limited to rare circumstances)
- People ex rel. Harrod v. Illinois Courts Comm’n, 69 Ill. 2d 445 (Court of Claims is a fact‑finding body, not a judicial court for certain constitutional review principles)
- Reichert v. Court of Claims of State of Illinois, 203 Ill. 2d 257 (certiorari review scope: examine record to determine whether tribunal proceeded according to applicable law)