Piser v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
938 N.E.2d 640
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Piser insured a 2003 Harley-Davidson with State Farm; insurer investigated loss of bike claimed stolen in 2006.
- State Farm requested extensive financial documentation (tax returns, credit report, bank records) and an examination under oath; Piser failed to provide requested materials.
- Gottardo, State Farm claim representative, interviewed Piser (unsworn) and sought credit report and financial records; Piser did not comply with requests.
- State Farm denied the claim based on Piser’s noncompliance with cooperation requests under the policy.
- Piser filed breach of contract and later a 155 Insurance Code vexatious delay claim; State Farm moved to dismiss under 2-619(a)(9) alleging breach of cooperation.
- Circuit court granted dismissal with prejudice on 2-619 grounds; Piser appealed asserting breach of cooperation is not an affirmative defense and that evidentiary foundations were lacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach of the cooperation clause is an 'other affirmative matter' under 2-619(a)(9). | Piser argues cooperation breach is not a valid affirmative matter. | State Farm argues breach of cooperation is a valid affirmative matter that bars the claim. | Yes; breach of cooperation qualifies as an affirmative matter under 2-619(a)(9). |
| Whether State Farm’s affidavits and attached materials had proper foundational support and admissibility. | Piser contends lack of proper foundation for the documents and affidavits. | State Farm contends Gottardo’s affidavit and attached materials are properly foundational and admissible. | Affidavits and materials had proper foundation and were admissible; they establish cooperation breach. |
| Whether plaintiff’s failure to file a counteraffidavit admitted the facts and entitles dismissal. | Piser did not respond with a counteraffidavit and disputes the facts. | Failure to counteraffidavit admits the facts and supports dismissal. | Yes; failure to file a counteraffidavit admits the facts and supports dismissal. |
| Whether State Farm’s prejudice showing is sufficient to support dismissal. | Piser argues prejudice is not proven or requires discovery. | State Farm demonstrated substantial prejudice from noncooperation per Cheek. | Prejudice proven; defense barred plaintiff's claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co., 144 Ill. 2d 178 (Ill. 1991) (cooperation owed by insured; insurer's prejudice standard)
- M.F.A. Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 66 Ill. 2d 492 (Ill. 1977) (prejudice required to deny coverage for noncooperation)
- Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (Ill. 1993) (affidavits and 2-619 foundations; Rule 191 standards)
- Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d 499 (Ill. App. 1997) (2-619 motion framework and reliance on affidavits)
- Callaghan v. Village of Clarendon Hills, 401 Ill. App. 3d 287 (Ill. App. 2010) (burden shifting after initial 2-619 showing; counteraffidavit required)