FIFTH DIVISION Novem ber 12, 2010
No. 1-09- 3379 JONATHAN H. PISE R, ) ) Appe al fro m the Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y, v. ) ) 08 L 9784 STATE F AR M MUTUA

L A UTOM OBILE ) INSURANCE COMPA

NY, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) Lynn M. E gan, Defe ndan t-Appell ee, ) Judge Presidin g. ) JU STI CETO OMIN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: I n t his a pp ea l, we de t er mine w he t he rbr ea ch o f an insu r an ce co o pe r at io n c lau se is a va lid de f ense consti tuti ng “ othe r af f i rm ati ve matter” b arr

i ng a c l ai m pursuan t to se cti on 2 -61 9(a

)(9 ) of the Ill in ois Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2008)). We als o consider whet her defend ant co mplied wit h fou ndat ional and evident iary re quir ement s for sup po rt ing af f i da v i ts, an d w h eth er pl ai n ti f f ’s f ai l ur e to res pon d wi th a c oun teraf f i da v i t en ti tl es de f en da n t to di sm i ssa l as a matter of l

aw. Plai ntif f, Jonathan

H. Piser, b

rought clai

ms agai nst his i nsurer, State Farm Mutual Aut omo bile Insur ance Co mpany (S t at e Far m), fo r br eac h of c ont ra ct and ve xat iou s and unreasonable del

ay pursuant to section 155 o f the Insurance Code (215 I LCS 5/155 (West 2006) ). S tat e Farm moved to dism iss pursuant to sect ion 2-619 (a)( 9) based o n its policy ’s
co op er at ion clau se, re lyi

ng o n its a djust or ’s affidavit and mat er ials at t ache d t her et o r equ est ing pr od uct ion o f do cument at ion t o w hich plaintiff never re spo nded . T he circ uit co ur t gr ant ed t he
m otion . For the

f oll owi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm .1-09-3379

2 BACK GROUND Plai ntif f i nsured h is 2003 Harley

Davi dson wi th defen dant, Stat e Farm . Piser h ad pu rc has ed his mo t o rc ycle in 2 00 3 a nd h ad it cu st o mized at a c o st o f mor e t han $6 0, 00 0. Pla int iff cl ai med h i s v eh i cl e w as sto l en on Septem b er 23 , 20 06 . H e f

i l ed a p oli ce repor t an d n oti f i ed Sta te Fa rm o f t he lo ss . St at e F ar m’s cla im re pr es en t at ive , Ro na ld G o t t ar do , inve st iga t ed t he cla im, whi ch i nc l uded an uns worn i nterv i ew of plai ntif f that en com pas sed approx i matel y three hours
. Gotta rd o al so r eq ue ste d p l ai

n ti f f to ex ecute a f i n an ci al au th ori za ti on to en ab l e S tate Fa rm to obt ain a co py of p laintiff’s cre dit re po rt , a ro ut ine pr oc edu re employed t o d et er mine whet her t he insu r ed ha s a fina nc ial mo t ive t o file a fals e c laim. Go t t ar do fo llo we d u p w it h a se co nd r eq ue st in
wr iting o n Oct obe r 2 6, 200 6. Plaint iff did no t co mply, and S t at e Far m was u nable t o o bt ain the
cre di t rep ort. Pu

rs ua nt to i ts p ol i cy prov i si ons , Sta te F arm also req ue ste d that p l ai

nti f f appe ar f or
an ex am i n ati on un der oa th b y a S tate Fa rm attor n ey. Al th oug h se v eral n oti ce s were d

i re cte d to plai ntif f , he f ail ed to resp ond to the r

eque st. St at e Far m furt her re que st ed d oc ument at ion r ega rd ing plaint iff ’s financial st at us, including hi s in come tax ret urns for the previous t hree years, a list of all credi t and charge acco unt, loans, and personal and busi

ness ban k account stat emen

ts for t he y

ear leadi ng up to the dat e of the loss (S ept ember 2 005 t hro ugh S ept ember 2 006 ). Thr ee let t er s we re sent by St at e Far m req ues t ing t hese mate rials, and G ot t ar do also re que st ed t hat plaint iff pr ovid e t he do cument at ion befo re and aft er his inter view wit h him. Desp ite t hese re que st s, t he mat er ials wer e neve r r ece ived. In t ur n, St at e F ar m de nie d p laint iff’s cla im. Pl ai ntif f f i l ed the i nstant ca use of a cti on f or brea ch of c ontract on

Septem ber 3, 200 8. In1-09-3379

3

response, State Farm m

oved to dism

is s pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Il li nois Code of Ci vi l Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2008)). The section 2-615 m ot ion was bas ed
on “ com m i n gl ed re l i ef ,”wh erea s th e s ecti on 2- 61 9 m oti on wa s b as ed

on pl ai n ti f f ’s f ai l ur e to cooperat e. The court denied State Farm’ s secti on 2-619 motion an d granted the section 2-615
m otion wi thout prej udi

ce. Pla int iff ame nd ed his c o mpla int t o ad d a co un t fo rve xa t io us an d u nr ea so na ble de lay in refusi ng to pay the claim

, pursuant to section 155 o f the Insurance Code (215 I LCS 5/155 (West 2006)) , in addi

tion to a count for breach of contra ct. Stat e Farm agai n f il ed a motion to dism

iss pursuan t to secti on 2-6 19, al

l egi ng p l ai ntif f ’sf ail ure to cooperate

ba rred h i s cl ai m . State Fa

rm asserted that under its poli cy , plai ntif f was required to coo perate and provide requested docum en tati on . Th e c i rc ui t cou rt gra n ted th e m oti on an d di sm i ss ed th e a men de d c om pl ai n t wi th prej udi ce. Pl ai ntif f tim el y appe aled. AN

AL YSIS Plai ntif f contends that t he ci

rcuit cou rt er red in grantin g Sta te Farm’s m

ot ion to dismi

ss beca use bre ach o f its p olicy’s co op er at ion clau se is no t a de fense c ons t itu t ing “ot her affirmative
ma tt er” neces sary

to defea t plai ntif f’ s clai m pursua nt to section 2-619(a)(9) (735 ILCS 5/2- 619(a)(9) (West 2008)). According to plai ntif f, the section 2-619 m

ot ion m erely constituted an at t empt t o ne gat e t he allega t ions in plaint iff ’s co mplaint w ith ar gument s and evidenc e pr ese nt ing Stat e Farm ’s versi on of the f acts. Plai ntif f m ai ntain s that the court ma

de a prem ature factual det er minatio n and impr op er ly weighed S t at e Far m’s mate rials in dismissing his co mplaint p ur sua nt to section 2-619( a)(9) of the Illin ois Code o f Ci

vil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2 -619(a) (9) (West1-09-3379

1 We previously f

il ed a Rule 23 o rder (166 Ill. 2d R. 23 ) but , subsequ ent t o S tat e Farm’s mot ion t o p ublish, w ithd re w o ur or der and filed t his op inion t o c larify Illi nois law re gar ding t he scope of an i

nsured’s duty to coo perate in the

context of in

surance cove

rage. Addi

tional ly , we ende avo r t o p ro vide gu idance on fo unda t ional and evident iary re quir ement s for sup po rt ing 4 2008)
. “A s ec t io n 2
- 61 9 mo t io n a dmit s a s t rue all w ell- ple ad ed fac t s, alo ng wit h r ea so na ble in feren ces that can b e gl eaned f

rom those facts.” Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital , 22 7 I ll. 2d 3 43, 352 , 8 82 N .E .2 d 58 3, 588 (2 008 ). The mot ion ad mits t he lega l sufficiency of t he plaint iff ’s co mplaint bu t asse rt s affirmat ive defens es o r o t her matt er t hat avo ids o r d efeat s t he plai ntif f ’sclai m . DeLuna v. Burciaga , 2 23 I ll. 2d 4 9, 59, 857 N. E. 2d 2 29, 236 (2 006 ). “The phrase ‘ aff

irm ative ma tt er’ encom

passes an y de fen se other than a nega

tion of the es sential alle gations of

the pla in tif f' s cause of

action.” Kedzie &

103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge , 156 Ill. 2d 112 , 1 15, 619 N. E. 2d 7 32, 735 (1 993 ). An “ ‘[a ]ffirmat ive matt er ’ is so mething in the
na ture of a def ense tha t com plete l y ne ga testhe ca us e of ac ti on or ref ute s cruc i al

con cl us i ons of la w or conclusi

ons of m aterial fact contai

ned i n or in ferred f rom the compl

ai nt.” Golden v. Mullen , 295 Ill . App. 3d 865, 869, 693 N.E. 2d 385, 389 (1997), citin g Fancher v. Central Illinois Public Service Co. , 279 Ill . App. 3d 530, 534, 664 N.E. 2d 692, 695 (1996). “The trial
co ur t must co nst ru e t he mot ion and sup po rt ing do cument s in the light mo st favo ra ble to t he
nonm ovant.” Tolan &

Son, Inc. v. KLLM A rchitects, Inc. , 308 Ill . App. 3d 18, 24, 719 N.E. 2d 288, 293 (1999) . We review the trial cour t’s rulin

gs on section 2-619 motions de novo
. DeLuna , 223 Ill . 2d at 59, 857 N. E.2d at 236. 11-09-3379

af f i da vi ts a nd the conse que nc esof f ai l ure to f i l e c oun teraf f i da vi ts i n s ec ti on 2 -61 9 m

oti on practice.

2 W e n ote th at c oope ra ti on cl au se s h av e b een en f orc ed ev en i n si tua ti on s w h ere a pa rty has i nvoked the attorney/cl

ie nt priv il ege ( Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Ill . 2d at 192-93, 579 N.E.2d a t 328 (held tha

t, in li ght of the b road un qual i f i ed du ty of cooperati

on, the i ns ureds were
re quir ed t o d isclos e co nt ent s o f any communicat ions t hey had w ith d efense co unse l rep re sent ing t he m o n a cla im fo rwh ich insu r er s ha d t he ult imat e d ut y t o sa t isfy) ) , an d w he r e a pa rt y ar gu ed his
n on coop erati

on wa s prote cte d b

y th e f i f th am en dm en t ri gh t to remai n si l en t ( American Coun try Insurance Co. v. Bruhn , 2 89 I ll. App. 3d 2 41, 249 , 6 82 N .E .2 d 36 6, 371 -7 2 ( 199 7) (he ld t he
cr imi nal right t o r emain silent a bou t his crime did no t excu se his failure t o c oo per at e and
com m uni cate wi th the i ns urer)). 5 In addressi

ng pl ai ntif f’ s f irst argum

ent we abi

de by long-stan din g Ill in ois preceden

t t hat an in sured’s f ai lure to coo perate is i

ndeed a v alid de fen se, and thus ca

n be set forth as other affir mat ive mat t er ba rr ing a c laim. “ Wit h r eg ar d t o co o pe r at io n c lau se s, t he I llino is S up r eme Co ur t has no t ed t hat ‘[a ]ny co ndit ion in t he po licy requ iring co op er at ion o n t he pa rt of t he insured is one of gre at import ance [citat ion], and its p urpo se should be o bserved [c itat ion].’ ” Employers Reinsurance C orp. v. E. Miller Insurance Agency, Inc. , 332 Ill . App. 3d 326, 337-38, 773 N.E.2d 707, 715- 16 (2002), quo ting Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. , 144 Il

l . 2d 178 , 191-9 2, 579 N .E.2d 322 , 327 (1 991). 2 “Ty pic ally the in surer has litt le or no k now ledge of t he fact s su rr ou nding a c laimed loss , w hile the insu re d has exclus ive kn owl ed ge of such f acts. The i

n su re r i s, th eref

ore , de pen den t on i ts i n su re d f or f ai r a n d c om pl ete1-09-3379

6

dis cl osure; hen

ce, the duty to coo perate.” Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Ill . 2d at 204, 579 N. E
. 2d at 33 3. T he co o pe r at io n c lau se o blig at es t he insu r ed t o “d isc lo se all o f t he fac t s w it hin h is knowle dge and otherwi se to aid the i nsurer i n i ts determi nation of coverage under the polic y.” Waste Management, Inc. , 14 4 Il l . 2d at 2 04, 579N.E .2d

at 3 33. See

also Jordan v. St andard Mutual Insurance Co. , 50 I ll. A pp . 2d 12 , 18 , 19 9 N
. E
. 2d 42 3, 42 7 ( 19 64 )
. T he insu r er is entitled “to gain

as m uch kn owledge an

d in form ation as m

ay ai d it i n i ts in vestigation, or as may ot her wise be significant t o t he insur er in det er mini ng it s liabil

ity und er t he po licy and in pro t ect ing agai nst fraudul

ent cl ai ms .” Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Il l . 2d at 20 4, 579 N .E.2d at 33 3. We l i kewi se determ i ne that the af f i dav i t and supp ortin

g m aterial s su bm i tted by State Fa rm in suppor t o f the m

ot ion to dismi

ss did n ot sim ply constitut e a denial

of plai ntif f’s al legations; rath er, the y rai se d addi ti ona l af f i rm ati ve matter b arr

i ng hi s c l ai m – brea ch of the coop era ti on cl au se . Pl ai nti f f ’s ci tation to Consumer Electric C o. v. Cobelcomex, Inc. , 149 Ill . App. 3d 699, 70 3, 50 1 N
. E
. 2d 15 6, 15 9 ( 19 86 ) , fo rt he pr o po sit io n t ha t “w he r e t he affir mat ive mat t er is me r ely
ev i denc e u pon wh i ch de f en da nt e xp ec ts to c onte st a

n u l ti matef ac t sta ted i n th e c om pl ai nt, se cti on 2-619(a)(9) should not be used” is of n o avail. A

lthough pl

ai ntif f gen erall y pl ed i n hi s am ended compl ai nt that he “sati sf

ie d all of hi s obliga

tions un der the in surance pol

ic y,” State Farm

rais ed the af f i rm ati ve matter of pl ai nti f f ’s br each of the coop era ti on c l au se

i n i ts p ol i cy . “W

hi l e a se cti on 2-619 motion adm

its al l we ll -pled f acts, it does not admi

t conclusi ons of l aw.” Klopf

er v. Court of Claims , 286 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 49 9, 508, 6 76 N.E.2 d 679, 6 86 (19 97). Further, “the ve

ry pri nci ple s of l aw whi ch govern c ontract s general ly appl y w ith equa l force to co ntracts of in

surance.” Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Ill . 2d at 191, 579 N. E.2d at 327,1-09-3379

7

ci ting Zitnik v. Bur

ik, 395 Ill . 182, 186, 69 N.E .2d 888, 890 (1946). The scope of the duti es im posed upon an i

nsurer an d its i nsured is def

in ed and controll

ed by the terms of the i

nsuran ce contract. Waste Management, Inc. , 144 Il l . 2d at 19 1, 579 N .E.2d at 32 7. The duty to coo perate clause in the policy

at issue here provides the f

oll owing: “a
. The i

nsu red sh all cooperate wi

th us an d, when asked assi st us i n: (1) making set tlement s; (2) securin

g and gi vi ng ev ide nce; (3) atten di ng, a nd g ettin g wi tnes ses to attend, heari

ngs and tri al s.” St at e Far m’s po licy f

ur t her re quir ed t hat t he insur ed “p ro vide all rec or ds, re ceipt s and in voic es,” “an

swer questions

under oath when

asked by any one we nam

e, as often as we
re aso nably ask, ” and “co op er at e wit h us a nd, when a ske d, assist us in ** * se cur ing and g iving evidence.” Thus, the mate rial sought by St ate Farm was clearly encompassed w ithin

its po li cy’s conditions and terms. Further, u nder the po li cy, plain tiff does not have the righ

t t o bring a cause of ac ti on u nti l al l pol i cy term s a re m et. The pol i cy cl ea rl y sta tes : “ Th ere

i s n o righ t of ac ti on ag ai ns t us*** un

ti l al l the term s of thi s p ol i cy ha ve be en met * **. ” “ [W]here

the prov i si ons of t he po licy a r e c lea ran d u na mbig uo us , it is t he du t y o f t he co ur t t o en fo r ce t he m ac co r din g t o t he ir pla in me ani ng.” Waste Management, Inc. , 1 44 I ll. 2d a t 191 -9 2, 579 N. E. 2d a t 327 , c iting Thornton v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co. , 84 Il

l . 2d 365 , 371, 41 8 N.E.2d 744, 74 7 (198 1). Nonetheless, it is wel

l settled that “unless the al leged breach of the cooper ation clause subs t ant ially

pr ejudice s t he insur er in defending t he pr imary act ion, it is no t a de fense u nder t he
co nt ra ct . T his is the t est t o be employed in ou r c ou rt s in case s whe re t he issue is a bre ach o f the1-09-3379

8

cooperat ion c la

use.” M.F.A. M

utual Insurance Co. v. Cheek , 66 Ill . 2d 492, 499-500, 363 N. E
. 2d 80 9, 81 3 ( 19 77 )
. Pr o o f o f su bst an t ial p r eju dic e r eq uir es an insu r er t o de mo nst r at e t ha t it
wasactual

l y ha m pered i n i ts def en se b y the v i ola tion of the coopera

tion claus e. Cheek

, 66 Ill . 2d at 500 , 36 3 N. E. 2d at 813 ; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. McSpadden , 88 I ll. Ap p. 3d 11 35, 113 8, 411 N .E.2d 121 , 123 (1 980). Plai nti f f mai nta i ns tha t the tri al cou rt i m prop erl y consi dered State Fa rm ’s as sertion of prej udi ce i n gr an tin g State F arm ’smotion

to dis m i ss a nd, a t the very l east, thi s i s a f

actual i ssu e. Plai ntif f argues that whether any

of the documen

ts sought by State Farm

are relev ant and wh

ether Stat e Farm was prej udiced requires di scovery. An i nsured’s complian

ce with an i

nsurer’s request made p ur sua nt t o a co op er at ion clau se, is a co ndit ion p re ced ent t o r eco ver y under a po licy, and the in sured’s n oncompl ia nce b ars i ts clai m. See Horton v. Allstate Insurance Co. , 125 Ill . App. 3d 1034, 1036-37, 467 N.E .2d 284, 285 (1984). The questi on whether an in sured has b

reached a cooperat ion c la

use i n a polic y h as general ly been hel d to be a question of f

act. See State Farm Fire & Casual ty Co. v. F

irst N ational Bank

& Trust C o. of Pekin , 2 Ill . App. 3d 768, 772, 277 N.E.2d 536, 539 ( 1972). However, where an i nsured “ ma ke[s] vi rtuall y n o eff ort to produce relev ant in form ation an d the in surer reli es on a cooperation cla

use to deny cove

rage,” the in

surer i s en titl ed to j udgm

en t. Hartshorn v. State FarmInsurance Co. , 361 Ill . App. 3d 731, 734, 838 N.E.2d 211, 214 ( 2005), citin g Horton , 125 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 1037-38 , 467 N .E.2d at 28 6. Plai ntif f’ s ef forts to cooperat e here were n egligi ble. Stat e Farm ’s af

fi davi t and exh ibits set for t h t he fo llowing inst ance s o f plaintiff’s failure t o c oo per at e: ( 1) plaint iff failed t o s ign a fi nan ci al authorization al

lowi ng State Farm to check hi s credi t; (2) plai ntif f f ai le d to subm

it to an1-09-3379

9

examinat ion u nder oa t h; and ( 3) plaint iff failed t o p ro vide all the re que st ed t ax r et ur ns, ba nk
r ec o r ds , an d o t he rfina nc ial d o cu men t at io n. Alt ho ug h p laint iff cla ims he su bmit t ed so me
un sp ec i f i ed f i na nc i al docum en tation, he di d n ot com pl y wi th rep ea ted req ue sts by State Fa rm f or doc umentat ion regar ding his fi nancial stat us for t he year of the loss, not withstanding St ate Farm’s
corres pon denc e e xpres sl

y sta ti ng i t woul d de ny pl ai nti f f ’s cl ai m i f the docum en ts w ere not received. Thus, we fi

nd the evidence marsh

aled by Stat e Farm m

anifestly satisfi ed the t est est ablished by o ur sup re me co ur t in Cheek. S t at e Far m’s sho wing o f pre judice c learly set for t h a def en se b arri ng p l ai ntif f ’sclai m . In h i s s ec on d a

rgum en t pl ai n ti f f con ten dsth at S tate

Fa rm ’s mate rials a ttach ed to i ts
m otion to dis m i ss a nd Gottardo’s af

f i dav i t la cked evi den tia ry f ounda tion . State Fa

rm , however,
mai nta i ns : (1 ) th e c ourt c oul

d c ons i der th e a f

f i da vi t of i ts c l ai m repres en tati ve , Ron al d G ottard o, and all of the incorpor ated mater ial s based on Got tard o’s perso nal knowledge and the busi

ness
ex ce pt io n t o t he he ar sa y ru le; an d ( 2) pla int iff faile d t o r eb ut Go t t ar do ’s affid av it , t he r eb y fat ally ad mit t ing t he fac t s t he r ein
. We ag r ee wit h S t at e F ar m. Pla int iff’s failu r e t o file a co un t er affid av it admit t ed t he fact s set for t h by St at e Far m, including t he fact t hat St at e Far m was p re judiced by plai ntif f ’sf ail ure to cooperate , there

by establ i sh i ng a com plete def en se b arri ng p l ai ntif f ’sclai m . Fi rs t, pl ai nti f f arg ue s th at Sta te F arm f ai l ed to l ay a p rope r f oun da ti on f or th e adm

i ss i on of the ma terial s attached to Go tt ardo’s aff ida vi t, incl udin g the le tt ers from Stat e Farm ’s attor ney requestin g documen

tation, and that Got tardo ’s avermen t t hat the atto rney

was authorized to iss

ue th e dem an d l ette rsl acke d f

oun da ti on . Pl ai n ti f f f ur th er argu es th at G ottar

do’ s a v er men ts th at a
swor n stat ement is quali

tat ivel y diff erent from an unswor n reco rded stat ement and t hat plaintiff ’s1-09-3379

10

clai m wasden i ed b eca use he f ail ed to cooperate l

acke d f ounda tion as i m proper opi

ni on testi mony . As a threshold m

att er, we r ecognize that basic rules of evidence require that a p arty must l ay the proper f

ounda tion f or the i ntroduction

of a docum en t in to evi den ce. Financial Freedom v. Kirgis , 377 Ill . App. 3d 107, 134, 877 N.E. 2d 24, 47 (2007), citin g Gardner v. Navistar International Transportation Corp. , 213 Il l . Ap p. 3d 24 2, 247, 5 71 N.E.2 d 1107 , 1110 ( 1991)
. To pr op er ly authe nt icat e a d oc ument , a par t y must p re sent evidenc e which d emons t ra t es t hat t he docum en t is what the p arty

clai ms i t to be. Kirgis , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 134, 877 N.E .2d at 47, ci ting Gardner , 2 13 I ll. App. 3d a t 247 -4 8, 571 N. E. 2d a t 111 0. Aut hent icat ion ca n be made by ei ther d i rect or ci rcum stan tia l evi den ce. CCP Ltd. Partners

hip v. First Source F

inancial, Inc. , 368 Ill . App. 3d 476, 484, 856 N.E. 2d 492, 498 (2006), citin g People v. Dow nin , 357 Ill . App. 3d 193 , 2 03, 828 N. E. 2d 3 41, 350 (2 005 ). Ro ut inely, the pr op one nt est ablishes t he ident ity o f the do cu ment “t hr o ug h t he t es t imon y of a wit nes s w ho has su fficient pe rs o nal k no wle dg e t o sa t isfy the trial court that a particula

r item is , in fact, what i

ts propo nen

t clai ms it to be.” Kimble v. Earle M. Jorgenson Co. , 358 Il l . Ap p. 3d 40 0, 415, 8 30 N.E.2 d 814, 8 28 (20 05). If the “ af f i rm ati ve matter” ass erte d i s n

ot appa ren t on th e f ac e of the com pl ai nt, a s ec ti on 2-619motion

m ust b e su pported b y af f i dav i t. Kedzie &

103rd Currenc

y Exchange, Inc. , 15 6 I ll. 2d at 1 16 , 61 9 N .E. 2d

at 7 35 . M ore ov er , a

n af f i da v i t m ay prov i de th e a uth en ti ca ti on n ee de d to
make a docum en t adm i ssi bl e. CCP Ltd. Partners

hip v. First Source F

inancial, Inc. , 368 Ill . App. 3d at 484, 856 N.E .2d at 498-99, ci ting North American Old Roman Catholic Church v

. Bernade tte , 253 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 27 8, 286, 6 27 N.E.2 d 1094 , 1099 ( 1992)
. A f f i da vi ts i n s upp ort of
m otion s un der s ection 2-6 19 are

control l ed b y Supreme Court Ru

l e 191 (210 Il

l . 2d R. 1 91).1-09-3379

11

Elliott v. LRSL Enterprises, Inc. , 226 Il l . Ap p. 3d 72 4, 732, 5 89 N.E.2 d 1074 , 1079 ( 1992)
. Supreme C ourt Rul e 191 provides the fol lowi ng:

“ A f f i da vi ts s ubm i tted i n c onn ec ti on w i th a moti on f or i nv ol un tary di sm i ss al un der s ec ti on 2- 619 of t he Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re *** shall be made o n t he pe rso nal kno wledg e o f the af f i an ts; sh al l set f orth wi th p arti cul ari ty the f ac ts u pon wh i ch the cl ai m , cou nte rcl ai m , or de f ense i s b as ed ; s

ha l l ha ve atta ch ed the reto s worn or ce rti f i ed cop i esof al l pa pers upon whi ch the af fi ant reli es; sh all n ot consi st of concl

usions but of f

acts admi ssi ble i n ev ide nce;
an d s ha ll affir mat ive ly sho w t ha t t he affia nt , if sw o rn a s a wit ne ss , ca n t es t ify co mpe t en t ly t her et o. If all of t he fact s t o be sho wn ar e no t wit hin the p er so nal kno wledg e o f one pers on, two or m

ore af f i dav i ts sh al l be use d.” 21 0 Il

l . 2d R. 1 91(a). “ ‘[I ]f, fro m the d oc ument as a who le, it app ear s t hat t he affidavit is based upo n t he pe r so na l kn o wle dg e o f t he affia nt an d t he r e is a r ea so na ble infe r en ce t ha t t he affia nt co uld competentl

y testi fy to its contents at trial , Rule 191 i s satis fi ed.’ ” Doria v. Vill age of Downers Grove , 397 Ill . App. 3d 752, 756, 921 N.E. 2d 478, 481 (2009), quo ting Kugler v. Sou thmark Realty Par tner s III , 309 Il l . Ap p. 3d 79 0, 795, 7 23 N.E.2 d 710, 7 14 (19 99). Prima facie authorshi p of a docume

nt may in cl ude a showi

ng that the writi

ng contai ns kn owledge of a

ma tt er suf f i cien tly obsc ure s o as to be

know n to onl y a sm al l group of i ndi vi dual s. Dow nin , 357 Ill . App. 3d at 203, 828 N.E .2d at 350, citing People v. Munoz , 70 Ill . App. 3d 76, 87-88, 388 N.E .2d 133, 14 1 ( 19 79 ). It i s th

e f un cti on of a tr i al cou rt to dete rm i n e th e adm i ss i b i l i ty of ev i den ce , a n d i ts rul i ngs wil l not be di sturb ed ab sen

t an a bus e of di scre tion
. Independent Trust Corp. v. Hurw ick, 351 Il l . Ap p. 3d 94 1, 952, 8 14 N.E.2 d 895, 9 05 (20 04).1-09-3379

12

Here, Got tar do’s a ff

idavi t est ablished his personal knowledge of St ate Farm’s
co rr esp ond ence wit h plaint iff , includ ing its a t t or ney’s re que st s, a s Go t t ar do at t est ed he was t he authorized represen

tative f or t he cl ai m, personal

ly in terviewe d pla

in tif f, an d had “ personal knowle dge of thi s m

atter as a resul

t o f [h is ] own in vestigation of the cl

ai m.” See U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Sauer , 392 Il l . Ap p. 3d 94 2, 947, 9 13 N.E.2 d 70, 73 -74 (20 09), appeal denied, 234 Ill . 2d 554 , 92 0 N .E.2 d 10 82 ( 200 9) ( af f i da vi t i n m ortga gef orec l osu re a cti on wasbase d on the personal

knowle dge of the af

fi ant; af fi ant stated t hat she was

servi ci ng agen t for len der, was assigned t o manag e t he loan, and had firsthand k now ledge o f the t ransa ct ion); Allerion, Inc. v. Nueva Icacos , 283 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 40 , 46, 669N.E.2d 1 158, 11 63 (19 96), appeal denied, 169 Ill . 2d 563 , 6 75 N .E .2 d 63 1 ( 199 6) (a ffi davit s su bmitt ed by plaint iff in supp or t of p er so nal jurisdict ion, wh ich sho we d t ha t ea ch o f t he affia nt s w as emp lo yed by p laint iff an d t ha t ea ch ha d b ee n c lo se ly in volv ed i n di sputed contract , were suff ic ie nt to allow trial

court to in

fer that af fi ants possessed personal knowle dge and could competentl y testi fy to facts al

le ged i n thei r aff ida vi ts, and thus
co mplie d w it h S up r eme Co ur t Ru le 1 91 )
. T hu s, Go t t ar do laid t he pr o pe rfo un da t io n in h is aff ida vi t based on his personal

knowle dge. St ate Farm also assert ed in i ts mot ion to dism

iss that t he cou rt cou ld consider Go tt ardo ’s affidavit a nd t he inco rp or at ed mat er ials based on t he bus iness exc ept ion t o t he hea rsa y rule. The trial court has discretion i

n deci din g whether statemen

ts are, in f act, hearsay

and, if s o, whether they nonethe l ess

are a dm i ssi bl e un der an ex cepti on to the h

ears ay rule. People v. Hammonds , 399 Ill . App. 3d 927, 941, 927 N.E. 2d 649, 662 (2010), citin g People v. Dun more , 389 Ill . App. 3d 1 095 , 1 106 , 9 06 N .E .2 d 12 33, 124 4 ( 200 9) . We do not have t he bene fit o f a t ra nscr ipt of t he1-09-3379

13

report of proceedin

gs bel ow, and it i s not clear f

rom the sum

ma ry order in

the record which
argu men t th e c i rc ui t cou rt a cc ep ted , or i

f i t f oun d th e docu men ts a dm i ss i b l e on som e a l ter n ate grounds. Further, plai

ntif f’ s obj ection to the materia ls , both in the proceedin

gs bel ow as well

as be f ore us, i s b ase d on a

l ack of f ounda tion gen eral l y and i s n ot speci f i cal l y bottome d on h

ears ay . A par t y is requ ired t o mak e sp ecific objec t ions t o e vidence , ba sed on p ar t icular gr ou nds, and t he f ail ure to do so res

ul ts i n a wai ver of ob j ections as to all

other groun

ds n ot speci f i ed or rel i ed on
. Barreto v. City of Waukegan , 133 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 9, 130, 4 78 N.E.2 d 581, 5 89 (19 85). Howe ver,
an y f orfe i ture of the issue i s a l

i m i tation on the parties a nd n ot thi s court. Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc. , 159 I ll . 2d 507, 514, 639 N.E. 2d 1273, 1276 (19 94). Fur ther, o ur review i s de
novo (DeLuna , 2 23 I ll. 2d a t 59, 857 N. E. 2d a t 236 ), and w e may affirm the jud gment of t he ci rcuit court o n an

y b asi s i n the record (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. , 368 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 94 8, 955, 8 58 N.E.2 d 530, 5 36 (20 06)). We de t er mine t ha t t he do cu men t at io n in co r po r at ed in G o t t ar do ’s af

fid av it is n o t he ar sa y,
asthe materials w ere

not of f ere d f or th e tru th of the matter as serted

the rei n, bu t rath er to s how that plain tiff had not ice that St ate Farm was requ esting do cuments and invoking the po li cy’s coop era ti on c l au se . “

‘H ea rs ay ev i denc e, a n ou t-of -cou rt sta tem en t of f ere d to pr ove the truth of the ma tt er asserted, is gen

erall y i nadm is si ble unl ess an exception applie s.’ [Ci

tation.]” People v. Shaw , 3 86 I ll. App. 3d 7 04, 709 , 8 98 N .E .2 d 75 5, 761 (2 008 ). Where an o ut -o f-co ur t st at ement is offer ed fo r so me pur po se o t her t han t o e st ablish the t ru t h of t he mat t er asse rt ed, t he st at ement i s n ot hears ay

and i s ad m i ssi bl e. People v. Shoultz, 289 Ill . App. 3d 392, 395, 682 N.E. 2d 446, 449 (1997), citin

g People v. A lbanese , 1 02 I ll. 2d 5 4, 70, 464 N. E. 2d 2 06, 214 (1 984 ). “A1-09-3379

14

st at ement t hat is offer ed t o p ro ve t hat a liste ner had no t ice o f the informat ion co nt ained t her ein, rather than to pro ve the truth of the m atter asserted, is n

ot hearsay.” Shoultz , 289 Ill . App. 3d at 395-96, 682 N.E. 2d at 449, citin g Kochan v. Ow

ens-Corning Fiber

glass Corp. , 242 Ill . App. 3d 78 1, 8 06 , 61 0 N .E. 2d

68 3, 6 99 (1 99 3) . “

‘Th e f act th at th

e state men t wa s m ade is rel ev an t f or i ts eff ect on the listener wi

thout regard to the trut h of the m atter asserted.’ ” Shoultz , 289 Ill . App. 3d at 39 6, 68 2 N
. E
. 2d at 44 9, qu o t ing M. Gr ah am, Cle ar y & G r ah am’ s H an db o o k o f I llino is Evi den ce §8 01.5, a

t 648 (6th ed. 19 94). Here, the letters sent by

Peter Alf ie ri, State Farm’ s atto rney, on Decem ber 22, 2006, January 10, 2007, and January

24, 2007, were admissi

ble to show t hat pla

in tif f h ad notice that State Fa rm wassee ki ng d ocum en tation pursuan t to its cooper

ati on cl aus e i n pl ai ntif f ’spol i cy . Further, the letters of Jan uary 10, 2007, and J

anuary 24, 2007, show that plai

ntif f h ad notice that ref us al to coop era

te a nd f urn i sh the req ue ste d i nf orm ati on woul d re sul t i n a deni al of l i ab i l i ty f or t he los s. T hus, t he let t er s sho w t hat plaint iff in fact had no t ice he w as no t in compliance wit h t he policy terms and did n

ot ful fi ll the po li cy condi tions required to mai

ntain a cause of action agai nst State Fa rm . A s s uc h, the ex hi bi ts re f ere nc ed an d i nc orporate d i

n Gottard o’s af f i da vi t are not he arsa y , and were

adm i ssi bl e i n de cidi ng th e m otion to dis m i ss. Even as sum

in g arguendo the

ex hi bi ts w ere he ars ay , th ey woul d n one the l es s q ual i f y f or admission i

nto evidence under the busi ness records except ion. Supreme Court Rule 236 provides, i n perti nen t part: “A ny writi ng or record, whether i

n the f orm of an y e ntry i n a b ook o r ot herwi se, made a s a memo ra ndum o r r eco rd of a ny act , t ra nsac t ion, oc cur re nce, or event , sha ll be1-09-3379

15

adm is si ble as evi dence of the act, t ransaction, occurrence, or event, if ma de i n the regular
co ur se o f any business, and if it w as t he r egu lar co ur se o f the business t o mak e su ch a
mem oran dum or re cord at th e ti me of such an ac t, tra ns ac ti on, occurren

ce , or eve nt or wit hin a rea so nable t ime ther eaft er . All ot her circu msta nces of t he making o f the wr iting
or re cord, i

n cl udi n g l ack of pers on al kn owl ed ge b y th e en tra n t or m aker , m ay b e sh own

to af f ect i ts wei ght, b ut shal l not af f ect i ts adm i ssi bi l i ty.” 145 Il l . 2d R. 2 36(a). Fo r t he ad mission o f a busines s re co rd , o nly pro of t hat t he r eco rd s we re made in t he regular course of b

usi ness and that i t was in the regular course of b

usi ness to prepare such records i s nece ssa ry . Hurw ick, 3 51 I ll. App. 3d a t 950 , 8 14 N .E .2 d at 903 . I n add itio n t o t he abo ve recited f acts in hi s af fi davi t, Go tt ardo further att ested that as a Stat e Farm adj uster, he

“ au thor ize [d] l eg al

cou ns el to i ss ueexam i na ti on u nd er oa th d em an d letters on b eh

al f of St at e Far m in the r egu lar co ur se o f [his] d ut ies as a St at e Far m claims repr ese nt at ive, a nd true an d correct copi es of

the dem and letters [we

re] i nc orporated i

nto the S tate Fa

rm cl ai m f i l e i n th e ord i na ry cou rs e of the ad j us tmen t of cl ai m s. True an d c orre ct c opiesof the le tt ers are attached to Stat e Farm ’s Motion to Dism is s.” T hu s, ev en if o ne we r e t o t r ea t t he mat er ials at t ac he d t o Go t t ar do ’s af fid av it as he ar sa y, Gotta rd o l ai d a proper f oun da ti on f or adm i ss i on un der Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 2 36 ’s ex ce pti on to t he he ar sa y ru le. Ho we ve r , we find t ha t t he mat er ials inc o r po r at ed as pa rt o f Go t t ar do ’s affid av it
are n onhears ay, as they

were off ered to sh ow notice a

nd n ot for the truth of the m atter ass erted. Thus, State Farm’s

motion to dism

is s was b ased on a va

li d defen se and adm

is si ble evi dence properl y setti ng f orth “ other af

f i rm ati ve matter” un

der s ection 2-6 19(a)( 9).1-09-3379

16

Mo re ove r, t hou gh we have d et er mined t hat unde r t he fact s o f this ca se, t her e is no question of

fact that plai

ntif f f ai le d to cooperat e and State Farm was thereby prejudi ced, even
assu ming arguendo an

i ss ueof f ac t ex i sts , un der we l l -es

tab l i sh ed sta tutory proc ed ure f or s ec ti on 2-619 motion practi ce, plai ntif f’ s f ai lure to properly c ontest St ate Farm’ s af fi davi t by s ubm ittin g a
co unt er affidavit is fat al to his cau se o f act ion. The failure t o c hallenge o r c ont ra dict sup po rt ing af f i dav i ts f i l ed wi th a s ection 2-6 19 m

otion resu l ts i n a n adm i ssi on of the f acts stated the

rei n. Zedella v. Gibson , 1 65 Ill. 2d 18 1, 18 5, 65 0 N .E .2 d 1 00 0, 10 02 (1 99 5) . N o r ma y a p laint iff si m pl y rel y on the al l egati ons i n h i s own com plai nt to ref ute a s ection 2-6 19 af

f i dav i t. Hollingshead v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. , 396 Ill . App. 3d 1095, 1101-02, 920 N.E .2d 1254, 126 0 (2 009 ). If

the de f en da nt s ati sf i esi ts i ni ti al bu rde n of proof on a moti on to d

i sm i ss base d on af f i rm ati ve matter av

oi di ng the l eg al ef f ec t of a c l ai m , th e b urden sh i f ts to the p l ai

nti f f to sh ow that t he def

ense i s unf ounded or requires the resol ution of an

essen tial el em ent of m aterial fact be f ore i t is prove n. Callagha n v. Villag

e of Claren don Hills , 401 Ill . App. 3d 287, 290-91, 929 N. E. 2d 6 1, 67 ( 201 0) . I n or der t o r efut e evide nt iary fact s co nt ained in t he de fendant 's su ppo rt ing af f i dav i ts, the p l ai

ntif f m ust prov i de a c ounteraf

f i dav i t. Callaghan , 401 Ill . App. 3d at 291, 929 N.E.2d at 67, citi

ng Kedzie &

103rd Currenc

y Exchange, Inc. , 156 Ill . 2d at 116, 619 N. E.2d at 735. If the p l ai ntif f f ail s to do so, the f

acts of the def endan t’s af f i dav i ts are d eem ed ad m i tted. Callaghan , 401 Ill . App. 3d at 291, 929 N.E .2d at 67, citing Zedella , 165 Ill . 2d at 185, 650 N.E.2d a t 1002. In a l as t atte m pt to s ave h

i s c l ai m , pl ai nti f f arg ue s th at Sta te F arm ’s ex hi bi ts actu al l y sh ow he co op er at ed, t hus ne gat ing St at e Far m’s affirmative d efense , a nd t hat St at e Far m shou ld no t be1-09-3379

17

allowed to rely

on pla in tif f’ s f ai lure to subm

it to a stat em

ent under oath becaus e State Farm f ai le d t o co nd uc t pla int iff’s len gt hy int er vie w u nd er o at h. We findno mer it t o eit he ras se rt io n. We fail to follow pl

ai ntif f’ s ci rcular l ogic i n ass erting that State Farm was a t faul t for not maki

ng hi s i ni tial int er view und er o at h. Mo re o ver , G o t t ar do ’s a ffida vit and t he n ume ro us let t er s s ent t o pla int iff pla inly as kin g fo rhis fin an cia l do cu men t s, wit h no co un t er - affid av it r es po nse by p laint iff, cle ar ly
es tab l i sh tha t plai nti f f di d n ot coop era

te. U nd er th e p ol i cy , pl ai nti f f i s th usf orec l ose d f

rom bri ngi ng a ny action ag ai

nst State Farm

f or thi s l oss. CONCLUSION For the f oregoi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm the c i rcui t court’s j udgm

en t. Af fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., w

i th HO WSE, J ., conc

ur.1-09-3379

18 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) JON ATH AN H. PISER, Pl

ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. STATE FARM

MUTUAL A

UTOMOBILE INSURANCE COM PANY, Defe ndan t-Appell ee.

1-09-3379 Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, FIF TH Division Nov em ber 12, 2010 (Gi ve m on th , day and ye ar ) JUSTICE TOOMIN

de li ve red the opi ni on of the co urt: FITZGERALD SMITH, P.J., with HOWSE, J. , concur [s] dissent[s]

Lo w er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: The Ho norable Ly

nn M. Eg an , J udg e P res idi ng .
Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. Plai nti ff-App el

lan t, Eug ene E. M urph y, Jr. John N. H ou rih ane , Jr. John H. S ch e id , Jr. MURPH Y & HOURI

HAN E, L.L.C. 77 We st Wacke

r Drive , Suite

4800 Chic ago, IL 60601
Def enda nt- App ellee, Rick L . Ha mmond Eric W. Moch Johnson & Bell, Lt d. 33 We st Mon

roe Stree t, Suite 2700 Chic ago, IL 60603 Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case

Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed

JU STICES

APPE AL from th e Ci rcu it Ct. of Co ok Co un t y, Cha nce ry Di v.

For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Smith and S mith of Chi cago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.1-09-3379

19