Rogers v. Imeri
999 N.E.2d 340
Ill.2013Background
- In 2009 a head-on collision occurred on a rural Effingham County road; Roy Rogers III died; his parents recovered $106,550 from two auto insurers.
- Imeri owned the bar where the intoxicated driver was drinking; his dramshop policy faced the statutory cap of $130,338.51.
- During litigation, Imeri’s insurer was declared insolvent and the Insurance Guaranty Fund (the Fund) assumed defense.
- Imeri sought a summary ruling that his liability could not exceed $23,788.51 (the cap minus other insurance proceeds); Rogerses argued setoff should come after the jury verdict.
- The trial court treated the issue as premature; the appellate court held that the reduction from other insurance should apply to the jury’s verdict; this Court granted review to resolve the correct setoff method.
- The Supreme Court reverses and remands, holding that the 546(a) setoff reduces Imeri’s maximum dramshop liability, not the jury verdict, and that the Fund’s obligation cannot be extended by jury damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 546(a) applies to the jury verdict or to the maximum liability | Rogerses: setoff applied to the verdict, then capped | Imeri: setoff applied to the statutory maximum | Setoff applied to the maximum liability (not the verdict) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurth v. Amee, Inc., 3 Ill. App. 3d 506 (1972) (three-step setoff procedure for dramshop cases)
- Roth v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 366 Ill. App. 3d 787 (2006) (Guaranty Fund limitations on setoffs in nonprofit context)
- Guzman v. 7513 West Madison Street, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122161 (2013) (First District rejected jury-first setoff approach in Fund context)
- Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill. App. 3d 237 (1977) (Fund as substitute insurer, not independent recovery source)
- Hasemann v. White, 177 Ill. 2d 414 (1997) (foundation for Fund as last-resort protection)