Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co.

19 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co.

    568 F. Supp. 536 (N.D. Ill. 1983)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that while decisions of intermediate appellate courts are important data for ascertaining the content of state law, they were not binding on federal district court

    Some districts of the Illinois Appellate Court have interpreted the most recent version of § 767 as precluding any common law recovery based upon an insurer's bad faith. See Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 60 Ill.Dec. 97, 432 N.E.2d 996 (1st Dist. 1982); Tobolt v. Allstate Insurance Co., 75 Ill. App.3d 57, 30 Ill.Dec. 824, 393 N.E.2d 1171 (1st Dist. 1979). These cases rejected Ledingham v. Blue Cross Plan, 29 Ill. App. 339, 330 N.E.2d 540 (5th Dist. 1975), rev'd as to costs, 64 Ill.2d 338, 1 Ill.Dec. 75, 356 N.E.2d 75 (1976), which held that an independent cause of action existed.

  2. Gilmore v. City of Mattoon

    2019 Ill. App. 4th 180777 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Weis , 333 Ill. App. 3d at 406, 267 Ill.Dec. 172, 776 N.E.2d 309 (quoting 215 ILCS 5/401 (West 2000) ). Examining another provision of the Insurance Code, the First District in Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co. , 104 Ill. App. 3d 353, 356-57, 60 Ill.Dec. 97, 432 N.E.2d 996, 999 (1982), found a private cause of action could not lie where certain actions, although possibly considered improper under the Insurance Code, provided no personal remedy.

  3. Glazewski v. Allstate Insurance Co.

    126 Ill. App. 3d 401 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 24 times
    In Glazewski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 126 Ill. App.3d 401, 81 Ill.Dec. 349, 466 N.E.2d 1151 (1984), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 108 Ill.2d 243, 91 Ill.Dec. 628, 483 N.E.2d 1263 (1985), the Illinois Appellate Court held that a plaintiff has no private right of action for alleged violations of § 761 of the Insurance Code. See also Elrad v. United Life and Accident Insurance Co., 624 F. Supp. 742, 744 (N.D.Ill. 1985).

    In Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co. (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 432 N.E.2d 996, plaintiffs alleged a violation of section 154.6 of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 73, par. 766.6) and sought injunctive relief, the appointment of a receiver and an order of liquidation or rehabilitation. The court held that in enacting section 155 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 73, par. 767), the legislature preempted the field of remedies available to an insured for the improper claims practices prohibited in section 154.6.

  4. Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

    120 Ill. App. 3d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 27 times
    Holding preemption of the tort arising from the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

    Our examination of the law of Illinois shows a solid series of five opinions by the Appellate Court of Illinois, all uniform in approving the cause of action predicated upon the above quoted section of the Illinois Insurance Code. These are the pertinent cases: Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co. (1982), 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 432 N.E.2d 996, appeal denied (1982), 91 Ill.2d 559. Hoffman v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 407 N.E.2d 156, appeal denied (1980), 81 Ill.2d 602.

  5. Receivership Mgmt. v. A.J. Corso & Assocs.

    No. 19-cv-01385 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2021)   Cited 6 times

    In other words, the statutes specifies the remedies available when an unauthorized insurer breaches a contract—that is to say, when it "fails to pay any claim or loss within the provisions of . . . an insurance contract" (215 ILCS 5/121-4)—but does not create a private right of action. See Hamilton v. Safeway Ins. Co., 432 N.E.2d 996, 999 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982) (Illinois statute permitting the Director of Insurance to take action against a company engaging in improper claims practices implies there is no private right of action for such practices).

  6. Daniels v. Bursey

    313 F. Supp. 2d 790 (N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 37 times
    Concluding that to state a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, "the plaintiff must allege only that a fiduciary violated a substantive provision of ERISA and the nonfiduciary knowingly participated in the conduct that constituted the violation"

    We agree with Defendants that Plaintiffs cannot sue Defendants under 215 TLCS 5/121 for operating an insurance business without a license, because there is no private right of action. See Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 356, 432 N.E.2d 996, 999 (1982) (finding that statute providing that the Director of Insurance shall take action against a company engaging in improper claims practices implies there is no private right of action for improper claims practices).

  7. Daniels v. Bursey

    Case No. 03 C 1550 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2004)

    We agree with Defendants that Plaintiffs cannot sue Defendants under 215ILCS 5/121 for operating an insurance business without a license, because there is no private right of action. See Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 356, 432 N.E.2d 996, 999 (1982) (finding that statute providing that the Director of Insurance shall take action against a company engaging in improper claims practices implies there is no private right of action for improper claims practices).

  8. Bageanis v. Am. Bankers Life of Fla.

    783 F. Supp. 1141 (N.D. Ill. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Discussing the split among the federal and state courts on whether Section 155 preempts claims for punitive and compensatory damages

    The principal debate among these courts is whether Section 155 preempts an insured's claim for compensatory and punitive damages or only punitive damages. Compare Impex Shrimp Fish Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety, 686 F. Supp. 183 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Section 155, if applicable, preempts both compensatory and punitive damages claims); Zakarian v. Prudential Insur., 626 F. Supp. 420 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (same); Aabye v. Security-Connecticut Life Insur., 586 F. Supp. 5 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (same); Abbott Laboratories v. Granite State Insur., 573 F. Supp. 193 (N.D.Ill. 1983) (same); Smith v. Metropolitan Life Insur., 550 F. Supp. 896 (N.D.Ill. 1982) (same); Combs v. Insurance Co., 146 Ill. App.3d 957, 100 Ill.Dec. 525, 497 N.E.2d 503 (1st Dist. 1986) (same); Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Insur., 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 75 Ill.Dec. 911, 458 N.E.2d 79 (1st Dist. 1983) (same); Hamilton v. Safeway Insur., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 60 Ill.Dec. 97, 432 N.E.2d 996 (1st Dist. 1982) (same); Tobolt v. Allstate Insur., 75 Ill. App.3d 57, 30 Ill.Dec. 824, 393 N.E.2d 1171 (1st Dist. 1979) (same); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill. App.3d 111, 13 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 N.E.2d 373 (3d Dist. 1978) (same) with American Dental Assoc. v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Insur., 625 F. Supp. 364 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Section 155, if applicable, only preempts punitive damages claims); Langendorf v. Travelers State Insur., 625 F. Supp. 1103 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (same); Scheinfeld v. American Family Mutual Insur., 624 F. Supp. 698 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (same); Chicago HMO v. Trans. Pacific Life Insur., 622 F. Supp. 489 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (same); UNR Indus. v. Continental Insur., 607 F. Supp. 855 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (same); Barr Co. v. Safeco Insur., 583 F. Supp. 248 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (same); Kohlmeier v. Shelter Insur., 170 Ill. App.3d 643, 121 Ill.Dec. 288, 525 N.E.2d 94 (5th Dist. 1988) (same); McCall v. Health Care Service Corp., 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 72 Ill.Dec. 640, 452 N.E.2d 893 (4th Dist. 1983) (sa

  9. W.E. O'Neil Const. v. National Union Fire

    721 F. Supp. 984 (N.D. Ill. 1989)   Cited 36 times
    Finding no pubic injury requirement, but holding that, "even if there is such a public injury or effect on consumers requirement, [plaintiff] has met this requirement."

    A number of cases have held that § 155 preempts claims for both compensatory and punitive damages. See Impex Shrimp Fish Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 686 F. Supp. 183 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Grady, J.); Zakarian v. Prudential Ins. Co., 626 F. Supp. 420, 422 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (Grady, J.); Aabye v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 586 F. Supp. 5 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (Aspen, J.); Abbott Laboratories v. Granite State Ins. Co., 573 F. Supp. 193 (N.D.Ill. 1983) (Shadur, J.); Shaw v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., No. 82 C 1421, 1982 WL 1460 (Oct. 29, 1982) (Getzendanner, J.); Henke v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. 80 C 5068 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 21, 1981) (Moran, J.); Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 458 N.E.2d 79, 75 Ill.Dec. 911 (1st Dist. 1983); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill. App.3d 111, 371 N.E.2d 373, 13 Ill.Dec. 656 (3d Dist. 1978); Tobolt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 75 Ill. App.3d 57, 70, 393 N.E.2d 1171, 1181, 30 Ill.Dec. 824, 834 (1st Dist. 1979); Hamilton v. Safeway Ins. Co., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 432 N.E.2d 996, 60 Ill.Dec. 97 (1st Dist. 1982). A few cases have held that § 155 does not preempt tort claims for either compensatory or punitive damages. See Roberts v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., 568 F. Supp. 536 (N.D.Ill. 1983) (Marshall, J.); Allianz Underwriters, Inc. v. Rusty Jones, Inc., No. 84 C 10860, 1985 WL 2272 (Aug. 6, 1985) (Holderman, J.). An increasing number of cases, including three decisions by judges who had previously held that all claims are preempted, have held that § 155 preempts claims for punitive damages but does not preempt claims for compensatory damages.

  10. Thiel v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

    661 F. Supp. 647 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    Every Illinois Appellate Court, however, that has addressed this issue has held that Section 767 preempts a common law tort remedy for punitive damages. See e.g. Fisher v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 125 Ill.App.3d 632, 641, 80 Ill.Dec. 880, 887, 466 N.E.2d 332, 339 (5th Dist. 1984); Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 296-297, 75 Ill.Dec. 911, 913-914, 458 N.E.2d 79, 81-82 (1st Dist. 1983); Hamilton v. Safeway Insurance Co., 104 Ill. App.3d 353, 356, 60 Ill.Dec. 97, 99-100, 432 N.E.2d 996, 998-999 (1st Dist. 1982); Hoffman v. Allstate Insurance Co., 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 634-635, 40 Ill.Dec. 925, 928, 407 N.E.2d 156, 159 (2d Dist. 1980); Tobolt v. Allstate Insurance Co., 75 Ill.App.3d 57, 68-72, 30 Ill.Dec. 824, 831-834, 393 N.E.2d 1171, 1178-1181 (1st Dist. 1979); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill.App.3d 111, 116-117, 13 Ill.Dec. 656, 661, 371 N.E.2d 373, 378 (3d Dist. 1978). Similarly, every federal court, with one exception, which has addressed this question has found preemption.