[ad_1]
On September 22, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Courtroom not too long ago tackled the next query:
Does Illinois’ public coverage on punitive damages and/or the statutory prohibition on punitive damages present in 735 ILCS 5/2-1115 bar restoration of incurred punitive damages in a authorized malpractice case the place the consumer alleges that, however for the negligence of the lawyer within the underlying case, the jury within the underlying case would have returned a verdict awarding both no punitive damages or punitive damages in a lesser sum?
In Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C., 2022 IL 127327, the Courtroom held the reply was no and {that a} authorized malpractice plaintiff can get well punitive damages awarded in opposition to it.
In Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C., the plaintiffs, Nancy Donovan, Bob Evans Sr., and Midwest Sanitary Service, Inc. (“Midwest”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a authorized malpractice motion within the circuit court docket of Madison County in opposition to their former attorneys, John Gilbert, Narcisa Symank, and the regulation agency of Sandberg, Phoenix, & Von Gontard, P.C. (“Sandberg P.C.”). Plaintiffs alleged that Sandberg P.C.’s negligence in defending them in a retaliatory discharge motion resulted in them paying $625,000 in punitive damages.
In response, Sandberg P.C. filed a movement to dismiss the grievance arguing that Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages violated part 2-1115 of the Illinois Code of Civil Process and Illinois public coverage. Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C., 2022 IL 127327, ¶ 9. The circuit court docket denied the movement, discovering that Plaintiffs’ request to get well the punitive damages it paid within the underlying motion didn’t violate the Code or public coverage. Id. On August 9, 2019, the circuit court docket granted Sandberg P.C.’s movement to certify for quick attraction. On April 28, 2021, the appellate court docket answered the licensed query within the unfavourable, affirmed the judgment of the circuit court docket, and held that Midwest was not barred from recovering the punitive damages it paid within the underlying matter.
Part 2-1115 offers, in pertinent half, “In all instances, whether or not in tort, contract or in any other case, by which the plaintiff seeks damages by purpose of authorized… malpractice, no punitive…damages shall be allowed.” Id. at ¶ 23. The Supreme Courtroom reasoned that the intent of the statute was to make sure that plaintiffs couldn’t search to punish their attorneys for his or her alleged misfeasance or nonfeasance. Id. at ¶ 27. Right here, the Supreme Courtroom held that Plaintiffs weren’t looking for to punish their former attorneys for his or her acts of negligence, however quite had been looking for to be compensated for his or her complete loss brought on by the authorized malpractice. Id. at ¶ 28.
The Supreme Courtroom then defined that its holding didn’t alter or in any other case change prior selections which held that “misplaced punitive damages couldn’t be recovered in authorized malpractice actions for a number of causes.” Id. at ¶ 30. The distinguished the speculative misplaced punitive from the particular and finite award of punitive damages.
In help of its holding the Supreme Courtroom citied instances from the Supreme Courtroom of Kanas and the Colorado Courtroom of Appeals. See Hunt v. Dresie, 241 Kan. 647, 740 P.2nd 1046 (1987); Scognamillo v. Olsen, 795 P.2nd 1357 (Colo. App. 1990).
Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Phoenix & Von Gontard, P.C., 2022 IL 127327.
[ad_2]
Source link
