Roppo v. Travelers Companies
100 F. Supp. 3d 636
| N.D. Ill. | 2015Background
- In July 2011 Sabrina Roppo was injured in a car accident caused by Jeffrey Block, who had a $500,000 automobile policy and a $1,000,000 umbrella policy issued by Travelers.
- Roppo’s counsel sent Travelers a certified letter in August 2011 requesting policy limits under 215 ILCS 5/143.24b; Travelers’ claims rep (Rachel Grace) replied with the $500,000 automobile-policy limit and asked for medical records (no medical records were provided).
- Roppo later sued Block in state court; Travelers defended him. Block’s counsel (Hitchings of Maisel & Associates) answered discovery and did not disclose the umbrella policy; the umbrella was revealed to Roppo’s counsel in June 2013.
- Roppo settled her underlying personal-injury claim for $750,000 in May 2014 (after the umbrella was disclosed) and then sued Travelers and the attorneys alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, violations of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143.24b and §155), ICFA, and RICO.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court evaluated reliance, standing under statutory provisions, duty of care to an adversary, consumer-nexus under ICFA, and predicate acts for RICO, and granted dismissal with prejudice on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud / negligent misrepresentation: did defendants misrepresent policy limits and did Roppo reasonably rely? | Roppo says Travelers and Block’s lawyers misrepresented/omitted umbrella coverage and she relied, causing damages. | Defendants say plaintiff fails to plead actual reliance with facts and Rule 9(b) particularity; counsel’s expressed doubts negate reliance. | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to plausibly plead reliance and for lack of Rule 9(b) particularity. |
| 215 ILCS 5/143.24b (disclosure statute): did Travelers violate the statute by not revealing the umbrella? | Roppo contends Travelers should have disclosed all liability coverage in response to the certified letter. | Travelers says plaintiff did not comply with the statute’s prerequisites (medical records) and the statute requires disclosure only of automobile liability, not umbrella coverage. | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to satisfy statutory preconditions and §143.24b covers automobile policies, not umbrella policies. |
| Negligence against defense counsel/employer: did attorneys owe a duty to the plaintiff as a non-client? | Roppo alleges counsel negligently answered interrogatories and employer failed to train/supervise. | Defendants say attorneys owe duties to their clients, not adversaries, absent narrow intended-beneficiary showing. | Dismissed: no allegation that attorney-client relationship intended primarily to benefit plaintiff; no duty owed to adversary. |
| ICFA and §155 claims: can plaintiff assert consumer-fraud and §155 remedies? | Roppo asserts deceptive practices under ICFA and vexatious delay under §155 harmed her. | Defendants argue no consumer nexus for ICFA and §155 remedies are limited to insureds/assignees. | Dismissed: ICFA failed for lack of consumer nexus and reliance; §155 unavailable to third parties (only insureds/assignees). |
| RICO: were predicate acts adequately pled? | Roppo predicates RICO on alleged fraud/misrepresentations and sought leave to replead. | Defendants contend fraud predicates not pled with requisite particularity and thus RICO fails. | Dismissed with prejudice: fraud predicates inadequately pleaded; leave to amend denied after multiple chances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (pleading-stage factual-acceptance and inference principles)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (distinguishing factual allegations from legal conclusions)
- Pelham v. Griesheimer, 92 Ill.2d 13 (Illinois rule on attorney duty to clients vs. third-party intended beneficiaries)
- Yassin v. Certified Grocers of Illinois, Inc., 133 Ill.2d 458 (§155 remedies limited to insureds/assignees)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100 (ICFA requires reliance and actual damages)
- Hartbarger v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 107 Ill.App.3d 391 (distinguishing umbrella policies from automobile policies)