Court Opinion

ID: 9719058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:41:41.448335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.368918
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: I disagree with the result reached and dissent from the order affirming the action of the trial court. The principal opinion by Mr. Justice Trapp affirms upon an apparent pleading basis. That opinion seems to avoid the substantive issue. This business about the insufficiency of the complaint and the pleading of conclusions as discussed in the principal opinion appears not to have been a matter of any concern in the trial court and was not even involved in the decision reached. Mr. Justice Mills and I are in agreement that the pleadings are sufficient. We part company upon whether or not there is a cause of action in tort for an intentional and wilful refusal to pay a contractual obligation. The opinion of the appellate court in Ledingham v. Blue Cross Plan for Hospital Care (1975), 29 Ill. App. 3d 399, 330 N.E.2d 540, is clear authority for the proposition that there is a cause of action sounding in tort for a wilful and intentional refusal to pay a clear contractual obligation. This complaint, with more specificity than the one in Ledingham, states such a cause of action. See also R. Teeple, When, If Ever, Are Punitive Damages Recoverable In An Illinois Contract Action? 65 Ill. B.J. 152, 158 (1976). I would reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the complaint.