Court Opinion

ID: 9745186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:40:36.231642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:57.395928
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the greater part of the majority’s opinion. I respectfully dissent, however, as to the majority’s reversal of the trial court’s finding that Columbia Mutual’s conduct was vexatious and unreasonable. As the majority notes, there is a split of authority between the appellate districts. The decision, however, as to whether a defendant’s conduct is vexatious and unreasonable is a discretionary decision, and the totality of the circumstances before the trial court must be considered upon review. Boyd v. United Farm Mutual Reinsurance Co., 231 Ill. App. 3d 992, 596 N.E.2d 344 (1992). The trial court was making this decision in the context of the discovery problems previously noted concerning evidence of mailing. Looking at the totality of the circumstances in which the trial court had to make a discretionary decision as to vexatious and unreasonable delay, I cannot say that its determination that Columbia Mutual’s conduct was vexatious and unreasonable was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.