State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Plough
81 N.E.3d 601
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On November 25, 2013, Annie Rodriguez’s SUV was struck head-on by William Plough; police officer Frieling reported Plough admitted he lost control and hit Rodriguez.
- Rodriguez’s insurer, State Farm, paid $3,623 to repair the vehicle and $4,902 for medical expenses; Rodriguez paid a $250 deductible out-of-pocket.
- State Farm sued Plough in subrogation for $8,775 (the $8,525 it paid plus Rodriguez’s $250 deductible); a jury awarded State Farm $8,525 but not the $250 deductible.
- After the accident Plough became mentally incapacitated and a special representative was appointed to proceed on his behalf; the representative moved in limine under Illinois’s Dead-Man’s Act to bar certain witness testimony.
- The trial court denied the in limine motion; Rodriguez, Officer Frieling, and State Farm’s claims adjuster testified (objections to Frieling’s and the adjuster’s testimony were not preserved).
- On appeal, Plough challenged pretrial rulings (forfeited) and the admission of testimony under the Dead-Man’s Act; the appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding one testimony error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez was a "directly interested" witness under the Dead-Man’s Act | State Farm: Rodriguez was not directly interested because this is a subrogation action and State Farm stood in her shoes | Rep: Rodriguez stood to receive the deductible (or a pro rata share) if State Farm recovered, so she was directly interested and incompetent to testify about the collision | Court: Rodriguez was directly interested (deductible recovery statute made her an immediate beneficiary); her testimony about the collision should have been excluded but error was harmless because Frieling’s non-interested testimony duplicated it |
| Whether trial court erred admitting Officer Frieling’s and adjuster’s testimony under the Dead-Man’s Act | State Farm: Their testimony was admissible; they were not parties or directly interested | Rep: Their testimony should be barred as concerning events in presence of a person under legal disability | Court: Objections forfeited by failure to raise at trial; in any event they were not "directly interested" so admissible |
| Whether pretrial rulings on arbitration rejection and complaint dismissal were reviewable | State Farm: Trial rulings valid; arbitration rejection and complaint proper | Plough: Trial court erred in allowing State Farm to reject arbitration and in denying dismissal | Court: Forfeited on appeal because not raised in posttrial motion; not considered |
| Whether appointment of a "special representative" precludes invoking Dead-Man’s Act | State Farm: Special representative status differs from statutory representative; protections not applicable | Rep: Appointment allowed invocation of Dead-Man’s Act | Court: No separate probate proceeding required; special representative may invoke the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Sobucki, 216 Ill. 2d 602 (2005) (discusses Dead-Man’s Act purpose and interpretation)
- Landers v. School District No. 203, 66 Ill. App. 3d 78 (1978) (failure to raise issues in posttrial motion forfeits appellate review in jury cases)
- McMath v. Katholi, 191 Ill. 2d 251 (2000) (forfeiture of arguments not raised at trial)
- People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 359 Ill. App. 3d 891 (2005) (definition of "directly interested" witness)
- Michalski v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 50 Ill. App. 3d 335 (1977) (monetary interest standard for Dead-Man’s Act)
- Clifford v. Schaefer, 105 Ill. App. 2d 233 (1969) (police officer’s admission against interest admissible)
- Gieseke v. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 61 Ill. App. 2d 119 (1965) (insurance agent not "directly interested" witness)
- Head v. Wood, 20 Ill. App. 2d 97 (1959) (no separate probate proceeding required to invoke Dead-Man’s Act)
- Rerack v. Lally, 241 Ill. App. 3d 692 (1992) (scope of Dead-Man’s Act; bars testimony of matters the decedent could have refuted)
- Balma v. Henry, 404 Ill. App. 3d 233 (2010) (collision itself is the "event" contemplated by Dead-Man’s Act)