Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims
2017 IL App (1st) 162068
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Krozel, former acting chief of staff at Illinois Dept. of Revenue, sought indemnification for private counsel fees after the Executive Inspector General’s ethics complaint against her was voluntarily dismissed; Attorney General declined to represent her due to conflict.
- Department of Revenue denied indemnification in April 2011; Krozel filed a claim in the Court of Claims on March 5, 2014 seeking reimbursement under the State Employee Indemnification Act.
- The State moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing the Court of Claims Act’s 2-year limitations period (§22(h)) barred the claim; Krozel argued the 5-year contract limitations (§22(a)) applied because indemnification arises from employment terms.
- The Court of Claims dismissed Krozel’s claim as untimely, holding the Indemnification Act creates statutory—not contractual—rights and applying the 2-year limit; it denied rehearing.
- Krozel filed a certiorari action in circuit court alleging the Court of Claims erred in applying the 2-year period and that she was denied due process; the circuit court dismissed and Krozel appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which Court of Claims Act limitations period applies to indemnification claims under the Indemnification Act? | Krozel: Indemnification arises from employment contract/terms (Indemnification Act viewed as part of employment), so 5-year contract limitations (§22(a)) applies. | State: Right to payment arises from statute (Indemnification Act), not contract, so 2-year limitations (§22(h)) applies. | Court: Applied 2-year §22(h); Indemnification Act does not create contractual rights absent clear legislative intent. |
| Whether dismissal by Court of Claims denied Krozel due process such that certiorari review is warranted | Krozel: Court misapplied law and thus denied meaningful opportunity to be heard on merits, violating due process. | State: Krozel had notice and multiple opportunities to be heard on timeliness; no due process violation. | Court: No due process violation—Krozel had multiple chances to argue timeliness; certiorari cannot be used to relitigate merits. |
| Whether certiorari may review correctness of Court of Claims statutory interpretation | Krozel: Wants merits reviewed via certiorari. | State: Certiorari limited to due process, not merits. | Court: Certiorari limited to due process; will not review correctness of Court of Claims’ interpretation absent action exceeding its authority. |
| Whether the Court of Claims exceeded authority by construing the Indemnification Act as non-contractual | Krozel: Implied legislative intent to create contractual obligation. | State: No clear legislative intent; statutes presumed not to create contractual rights. | Court: Court of Claims relied on settled law (presumption against statutes creating contract rights); did not exceed constitutional authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d 499 (1997) (Court of Claims dismissal as untimely did not violate due process where party had opportunities to be heard)
- Reyes v. Court of Claims, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1097 (1998) (same principle; multiple chances to be heard defeat due process claim)
- Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Court of Claims, 109 Ill. 2d 72 (1985) (certiorari available when Court of Claims deprives party of due process by denying opportunity to be heard)
- People v. Philip Morris, 198 Ill. 2d 87 (2001) (describing Court of Claims’ role as the forum to receive and resolve claims against the State)
- Reichert v. Court of Claims, 203 Ill. 2d 257 (2003) (certiorari review limited to whether inferior tribunal proceeded according to law and provided due process)
- Dopkeen v. Whitaker, 399 Ill. App. 3d 682 (2010) (statutes are presumed not to create contractual rights absent clear legislative intent)
- Hyde Park Medical Laboratory, Inc. v. Court of Claims, 259 Ill. App. 3d 889 (1994) (courts will not extend certiorari to review merits of Court of Claims decisions)
- People ex rel. Harrod v. Illinois Courts Comm’n, 69 Ill. 2d 445 (1977) (Court of Claims is a fact-finding body, not a coequal judicial court)