Rogers v. Imeri
985 N.E.2d 1062
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs filed a Dramshop Act action after their son was fatally injured in a head-on collision caused by an intoxicated driver who was served alcohol at Johnny’s Bar and Grill (owned by Imeri).
- Defendant’s dramshop liability policy with Constitutional Casualty Company had a $130,338.51 cap, but the insurer was insolvent, and the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund took over the defense.
- Plaintiffs had recovered $26,550 from the intoxicated driver’s liability policy and $80,000 from their own underinsured/medical coverage insurance proceeds.
- Defendant sought a summary determination that liability should be reduced first by the statutory cap and then by the other insurance recoveries under 215 ILCS 5/546(a).
- Trial court denied the motion, finding the setoff issue premature and that it would invade the jury’s role; interlocutory review was sought.
- Question certified: whether the 546(a) setoff should be applied against the jury verdict or against the defendant’s maximum dramshop liability when the verdict exceeds the cap.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 546(a) setoffs are applied against the verdict or the cap | Rogers: set off against the verdict, then reduced to cap if needed | Imeri: set off against the cap (maximum liability) first | Setoff applied against the jury verdict, then reduced to the cap if necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurth v. Amee, Inc., 3 Ill. App. 3d 506 (1972) (setoff procedure: verdict first, then offset, then cap)
- Roth v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 366 Ill. App. 3d 787 (2006) (amendment changes to 546; scope of Fund setoffs)
- Gines v. Ivy, 358 Ill. App. 3d 607 (2005) (Guaranty Fund position and purpose; setoffs context)
- Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill. App. 3d 237 (1977) (intent of Fund to place claimants in same position as if insurer not insolvent)
- Hasemann v. White, 177 Ill. 2d 414 (1997) (Fund liability limits and applicability in certain contexts)
- Burton v. Ramos, 341 Ill. App. 3d 122 (2003) (Fund setoff limitations when plaintiff settles or recovers elsewhere)