McGary v. Illinois Farmers Insurance
58 N.E.3d 804
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- McGary sued Illinois Farmers for breach of contract after Farmers denied coverage for a June 29, 2010 car accident, asserting McGary failed to cooperate and submit to examination under oath.
- Investigations revealed conflicting accounts about ownership and purchase of the Bentley involved: title records, dealer testimony, and others suggested the Bentley had different owners and earlier damage; Morgan was listed as the Bentley owner on the police report but denied ownership.
- During discovery, Morgan (deponent) repeatedly refused to answer questions about car transactions and related facts on his attorney Schulman’s instruction; Farmers certified the disputed questions and moved to compel.
- The trial court granted Farmers’ motion to compel (Aug. 11, 2014). At a resumed deposition (Oct. 1), counsel again instructed Morgan not to answer; Farmers sought contempt sanctions and the court entered contempt (Oct. 6) and later imposed monetary sanctions for the fruitless deposition (Oct. 21).
- Morgan and Schulman appealed arguing (inter alia) that the questions were irrelevant because of the “mend the hold” doctrine and that the contempt order was defective for lacking a purge provision and written reasons.
- The appellate court vacated the Oct. 6 contempt order and the Oct. 21 sanction order and remanded because the contempt order lacked a purge provision and both written orders failed to set forth the trial court’s reasons as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McGary) | Defendant's Argument (Farmers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contemnors could refuse to answer deposition questions as irrelevant under the “mend the hold” doctrine | Morgan/Schulman: doctrine limits Farmers’ defenses so questions are irrelevant | Farmers: questions relevant to cooperation and coverage defenses; court had compelled answers | Court did not decide the doctrine’s applicability on appeal (assumed court ordered answers for purposes of review) |
| Whether contempt order was void for lack of a purge provision | Morgan/Schulman: absence of purge makes order void ab initio | Farmers: court had jurisdiction; defect is correctable | Order was erroneous for lacking purge language but not void; remand to correct error |
| Whether contempt and sanction orders complied with Ill. S. Ct. Rule 219(c) (written reasons required) | Morgan/Schulman: trial court failed to provide written reasons | Farmers: record/motion might supply reasons | Court held both written orders lacked the specific written reasons required by Rule 219(c); vacated orders and remanded |
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction because of premature notice of appeal | Morgan/Schulman: Oct. 17 notice divested trial court | Farmers: Oct. 6 not final/monetary; trial court retained jurisdiction | Appellate court held the Oct. 17 notice was premature and trial court retained jurisdiction to enter Oct. 21 sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (discussion of reviewability of discovery orders)
- Felzak v. Hruby, 226 Ill. 2d 382 (indirect civil contempt must include a purge provision)
- People v. Davis, 156 Ill. 2d 149 (distinction between void and voidable judgments)
- People v. Marker, 233 Ill. 2d 158 (interpretation of court rules by their plain language)
- People v. Jones, 168 Ill. 2d 367 (rules should not be interpreted to render terms superfluous)
- People v. Houston, 226 Ill. 2d 135 (supreme court rules have the force of law and must be followed)
- Illinois Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 393 Ill. App. 3d 782 ( appellate decisions that relaxed Rule 219(c) requirement)
- In re Marriage of Baumgartner, 384 Ill. App. 3d 39 (same)
- Glover v. Barbosa, 344 Ill. App. 3d 58 (same)