Laurent v. Johnson
2017 IL App (3d) 160627
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Thomas Laurent purchased a Time Insurance Company health policy in 2005; policy had a $100,000 annual limit and a 3‑year suit provision; no agent could alter policy terms.
- Thomas was injured in Aug. 2006 and died; Time paid the $100,000 limit but refused further reimbursement for excess medical bills.
- In Oct. 2006 Judith hired attorney Kay Johnson as executor to pursue estate assets, including a reimbursement claim against Time and its agent Gary Nohovig.
- Johnson filed a breach‑of‑contract suit in Nov. 2010 but delayed service; Time removed to federal court in 2011; the federal court dismissed the case with prejudice in May 2012.
- In March 2012 Judith settled with Nohovig for $9,000 and executed a broad release that, by its terms, discharged Nohovig and related parties.
- Judith (as executor) sued Johnson for legal malpractice in 2014; Johnson moved for summary judgment arguing Judith cannot prove proximate cause or damages because the underlying claim was meritless or released; trial court granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laurent) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a factual dispute exists over Nohovig’s agency status (agent for Time vs. agent for Laurent) | Nohovig may have been Laurent’s agent or dual agent, so discrepancy rule may not bar recovery | Laurent repeatedly pled and admitted Nohovig was Time’s agent; no genuine issue exists | Court held Laurent is bound by pleadings/admissions that Nohovig was Time’s agent; no genuine factual dispute |
| Whether the discrepancy rule bars Laurent’s underlying breach claim | Discrepancy rule should not apply if Nohovig was Laurent’s agent or acted negligently in procuring the policy | Discrepancy rule applies because Laurent failed to read/notify insurer of policy discrepancy; underlying claim would fail | Court held discrepancy rule barred recovery because insureds failed to read and notify; underlying claim would not have succeeded |
| Whether settlement/release with Nohovig left any viable claims (including respondeat superior/tort) | Release was executed after Johnson’s negligence and should not absolve malpractice; tort claims might remain | Settlement (accepted via March 2012 email) and broad release extinguished all claims against Nohovig and derivative claims against Time | Court held settlement occurred before dismissal, was voluntary and broad, and extinguished claims against Nohovig and Time, defeating proximate cause/damages |
| Whether Judith could prove proximate cause and damages in her malpractice action | Johnson’s conduct caused loss of a recoverable underlying cause of action and damages to the estate | Because underlying claim was barred by law and was released, Judith cannot prove causation or damages | Court affirmed summary judgment for Johnson because Laurent could not show causation or actual damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 211 Ill. 2d 32 (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Tri‑G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 222 Ill. 2d 218 (legal malpractice requires showing underlying claim would have succeeded)
- Floral Consultants, Ltd. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 128 Ill. App. 3d 173 (insured who fails to read policy and notify insurer cannot recover for policy discrepancy)
- Pagano v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 257 Ill. App. 3d 905 (pleadings and admissions fix issues for summary judgment analysis)
- Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 307 (appellate affirmance of summary judgment may rest on any record basis)
- Preferred Personnel Services, Inc. v. Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, LLC, 387 Ill. App. 3d 933 (elements of legal malpractice action)