State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Trujillo
117 N.E.3d 298
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- State Farm sued Juan Trujillo (subrogee of Joanna Potepa) for negligence stemming from a 2015 auto collision, seeking $12,365.74; case was assigned to mandatory arbitration.
- Plaintiff served a Rule 237 notice requiring Trujillo to appear at arbitration; notice-setting advising failure to appear could waive the right to reject the award.
- At arbitration (May 15, 2017) Trujillo did not appear personally; his attorney attended and participated; arbitrators awarded plaintiff $8,656.02 and noted the defendant was represented by counsel only.
- Trujillo filed a notice rejecting the award; plaintiff moved under Supreme Court Rule 90(g) to bar rejection as a sanction for noncompliance with Rule 237(b).
- Trial court granted the motion, entered judgment on the arbitration award, and denied Trujillo’s motion to reconsider after finding no affidavits or explanation for his absence and that Rule 90(g) sanctions were proper.
- Trujillo appealed, arguing the sanction was improper because counsel was present and the court misapplied law (invoking Rule 91(b)/Kogut); appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly barred defendant from rejecting the arbitration award under Rule 90(g) for failing to appear after service of a Rule 237 notice | Rule 90(g) authorizes debarring as a sanction for failure to comply with Rule 237(b); defendant failed to appear after being noticed | Presence of defense counsel at arbitration cured any defect; sanction unjustified without prejudice or willfulness | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; Rule 90(g) permits debarring for noncompliance and defendant offered no excuse or affidavits for absence |
| Whether counsel’s attendance preserves right to reject the award despite party’s absence | N/A (plaintiff argues Rule 90(g) still applies) | Counsel’s presence preserves right to reject and should preclude sanction | Rejected: attendance of counsel does not preclude Rule 90(g) sanction; courts may still bar rejection |
| Whether Rule 91(b) (good-faith participation) analysis controls here | Plaintiff sought sanction under Rule 90(g), not Rule 91(b) | Sanction improperly based on Rule 91(b); Kogut (Rule 91(b) case) controls | Rejected: Rule 91(b) inapplicable; trial court relied on Rule 237/90(g); Kogut distinguishable |
| Whether the motion to reconsider raised newly discovered evidence or legal error warranting relief | N/A | Attached letters and phone-contact claims constitute new evidence or show error in law application | Denied: evidence was available earlier and lacked affidavit; no change in law or demonstrated error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bachmann v. Kent, 293 Ill. App. 3d 1078 (trial court may impose sanctions, including debarring rejection, for Rule 237 violations)
- State Farm Ins. Co. v. Gebbie, 288 Ill. App. 3d 640 (absence from arbitration can support debarring a party from rejecting the award)
- Kellett v. Roberts, 281 Ill. App. 3d 461 (debarring for failure to comply with Rule 237 is permissible)
- Johnson v. Saenz, 311 Ill. App. 3d 693 (sanctions reversed where nonappearance was due to confusion/extenuating circumstances)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kogut, 354 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Rule 91(b) good-faith-participation analysis; distinguishable where both parties were present)
- Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (standard: motion to reconsider addresses newly discovered evidence, changes in law, or legal error)