State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Plough
2017 IL App (2d) 160307
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 25, 2013 Annie Rodriguez’s SUV was struck head-on by William Plough; officer Frieling reported Plough admitted losing control and hitting Rodriguez.
- Rodriguez’s insurer, State Farm, paid repairs and medical bills totaling $8,775 (including Rodriguez’s $250 deductible) and sued Plough in subrogation for that amount.
- A jury awarded State Farm $8,525 (the amounts State Farm paid) but not the $250 deductible.
- Plough became mentally incapacitated before trial; the court appointed a special representative to proceed for him and the rep moved in limine invoking Illinois’s Dead‑Man’s Act to bar certain witnesses.
- The trial court denied the motion in limine; Rodriguez, officer Frieling, and State Farm’s claims adjuster testified (objections to Frieling’s and the adjuster’s testimony were not made at trial).
- On appeal Plough challenged pretrial rulings (forfeited) and preserved only the Dead‑Man’s Act objections; the appellate court affirmed, finding only Rodriguez’s testimony was barred but the error harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State Farm) | Defendant's Argument (Plough/special rep) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Forfeiture of pretrial challenges (arbitration rejection; motion to dismiss) | State Farm defended trial court rulings | Plough argued those rulings were erroneous | Forfeited: not raised in posttrial motion, so not reviewed |
| 2. Applicability of Dead‑Man’s Act to officer/adjuster testimony | Their testimony was admissible; they were not ‘‘directly interested’’ witnesses | Rep argued their testimony recounted events involving the disabled party and should be barred | Forfeited as to officer/adjuster (no trial objection); in any event they were not ‘‘directly interested’’ so admissible |
| 3. Whether Rodriguez was a “directly interested” witness under Dead‑Man’s Act | State Farm: as insured she was not a party and had no interest because State Farm was the real plaintiff in subrogation | Rep: Rodriguez had an immediate monetary interest (deductible recovery) and thus was incompetent to testify about the collision | Held: Rodriguez was directly interested (statutory scheme meant she would receive a pro‑rata share), so her testimony about the collision was barred |
| 4. Whether admission of Rodriguez’s testimony requires reversal | State Farm: even if error, other admissible evidence (Frieling’s admission) made the error harmless | Rep: admission was prejudicial | Held: Error but harmless because Frieling’s independent, admissible testimony was cumulative; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Sobucki, 216 Ill. 2d 602 (discussion of Dead‑Man’s Act scope and purpose)
- Clifford v. Schaefer, 105 Ill. App. 2d 233 (police officer’s statement admissible in driver‑vs‑driver action)
- Balma v. Henry, 404 Ill. App. 3d 233 (collision treated as the ‘‘event’’ under Dead‑Man’s Act)
- Rerack v. Lally, 241 Ill. App. 3d 692 (definition and limited reach of Dead‑Man’s Act)
- People v. $5,608 United States Currency, 359 Ill. App. 3d 891 (who is a "directly interested" witness)
- Landers v. School District No. 203, 66 Ill. App. 3d 78 (forfeiture where posttrial motion not made)
- Head v. Wood, 20 Ill. App. 2d 97 (no separate probate proceeding required to invoke Dead‑Man’s Act)
- Michalski v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 50 Ill. App. 3d 335 (what constitutes direct monetary interest)
- Gieseke v. Hardware Dealers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 61 Ill. App. 2d 119 (insurance agent not a directly interested witness)