Court Opinion

ID: 9735605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:25:31.449454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:00.336437
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In my view the majority errs in finding that comparative negligence would apply in the determination and arbitration as to what sum plaintiff may recover. In particular, the majority, in reaching this conclusion, misconstrues Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins, 77 Ill. 2d 384, 396 N.E.2d 528 (1979). Elkins is clearly the controlling case in this situation. The language of the two policies is substantially similar, and the logic of Elkins applies. The supreme court followed authorities from other jurisdictions, which it cited in its opinion, showing that "recovery has been permitted when the claimant shows conduct on the part of the tortfeasor spouse which would entitle the claimant to recover damages even though a defense available to the tortfeasor would defeat actual recovery.” Elkins, 77 Ill. 2d at 389, 396 N.E.2d at 530. Our supreme court concluded that the claimant need only show entitlement to damages. "We agree with the appellate court that the proper interpretation of the words 'legally entitled to recover’ means that the claimant must be able to prove the elements of her claim necessary to entitle her to recover damages. That the tortfeasor uninsured motorist in an action brought against him might be in a position to invoke a defense of limitations or some form of statutory immunity is relevant to the question of the right to enforce payment, but does not affect the claimant’s legal entitlement to recovery. In interpreting the provisions of an insurance policy the intent of the parties is the most significant factor and any ambiguity should be construed in favor of the insured. (Kaufmann v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. (1979), 76 Ill. 2d 11[, 389 N.E.2d 1150].)” Elkins, 77 Ill. 2d at 390-91, 396 N.E.2d at 531. The Elkins court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court, which noted that the insurer did not stand in the shoes of the underlying defendant who could assert a defense such as this. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Elkins, 63 Ill. App. 3d 62, 66, 381 N.E.2d 1, 4 (1978). The supreme court in Elkins concluded that the claimant need only show entitlement to damages and that an affirmative defense bar such as spousal immunity could not be raised. Elkins, 77 Ill. 2d at 389, 396 N.E.2d at 531. The majority notes that the Elkins decision predated the doctrine of comparative fault in Illinois. This position fails to recognize that the doctrine in existence at the time Elkins was decided was contributory negligence, which operated as a complete bar. See Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1, 421 N.E.2d 886 (1981). This is a distinction without a difference. The same may be said of the majority’s position that comparative fault by statute applies to "all actions.” It still constitutes an affirmative defense, just as spousal immunity, which, according to Elkins, cannot be raised by the insurer. Elkins, 77 Ill. 2d at 390-91, 396 N.E.2d at 531. Based on the clear holding of Elkins, I would find that the trial court abused its discretion in its order and reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.