Powers v. Rosine
956 N.E.2d 583
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Powers and Story-Phillips were injured in an automobile collision caused by Rosine, who pled guilty to DUI.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek punitive damages against Rosine.
- Plaintiffs sought supplemental discovery of Rosine's financial status to support punitive damages.
- Rosine and his attorney, Umland, objected and refused to disclose financial information; Umland moved for contempt testing the discovery order.
- Trial court allowed supplemental discovery; later, Umland was found in contempt, which the appellate court later vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is discovery of financial status relevant and proper? | Powers/Story-Phillips: financial status is relevant to punitive damages and discoverable. | Rosine/Umland: wealth should not be discoverable or admissible for punitive damages under due process. | Financial status is relevant and properly discoverable; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was Umland’s contempt for noncompliance proper? | Powers/Story-Phillips: contempt to compel compliance was appropriate. | Rosine/Umland: contempt was improper or unnecessary. | Contempt finding upheld, but the contempt order vacated. |
| Is the equal-protection argument ripe for review? | Powers/Story-Phillips: wealth-based protections violate equal protection in punitive-damages context. | Rosine/Umland: argument premature before punitive damages are awarded. | Not ripe for decision at pretrial stage; not decided. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowe Excavating Co. v., 225 Ill.2d 456 (Ill. 2006) (due process standards tied to constitutional review of punitive damages)
- Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (unconstitutional punitive damages standards under due process)
- Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (punitive damages excessive under due process)