In re Estate of Schmidt

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Estate of Scott

    208 Ill. App. 3d 846 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 21 times

    However, its use is encouraged in appropriate circumstances. (See In re Estate of Schmidt (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 456, 458.) We are not aware that Illinois has ever made a statement analogous to that of the Rimes court.

  2. Travelers Indem. Co. of Illinois v. Moore

    642 F. Supp. 1119 (C.D. Ill. 1986)   Cited 1 times
    In Moore, the victim was injured in an explosion in Illinois and, after initial treatment in Illinois, was transferred to the burn unit of the Washington Hospital Center in the District of Columbia.

    70 Ill.Rev.Stat. at ¶ 2. Although the Illinois Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether the "exclusive benefit" clause of ¶ 2 precluded the attachment and enforcement of a foreign hospital lien against the proceeds of a wrongful death action, the Appellate Court of Illinois in Schmidt v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 79 Ill. App.3d 456, 34 Ill.Dec. 766, 398 N.E.2d 589 (1979), held that the "exclusive benefit" clause prevented an insurer from exercising subrogation rights against a wrongful death recovery. In Schmidt, the insurer had paid $6,000 on an automobile policy to the insured's widow following his death in an automobile accident.

  3. Thatcher v. Eichelberger

    429 N.E.2d 1090 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 7 times

    Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to dismiss State Farm as a party, alleging that the trust agreement that plaintiff signed when she received the payment from State Farm was "void and contrary to public policy" under the Wrongful Death Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 1 et seq.) and should not be enforced. State Farm filed an objection to plaintiff's motion, and the court allowed the motion based upon the precedent of In re Estate of Schmidt (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 456, 398 N.E.2d 589, and National Bank v. Podgorski (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 265, 373 N.E.2d 82. The written order dismissing State Farm as a party entered by the court included a finding under Supreme Court Rule 304 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 110A, par. 304) that there was no just reason to delay appeal, from which order State Farm has appealed. • 1 The statutory basis for the claim that insurance companies should not be allowed subrogation rights in wrongful death actions is section 2 of the Wrongful Death Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 70, par. 2), which provides:

  4. Esin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

    424 N.E.2d 1307 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    The widow contends the words "exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse and next of kin" denote an intention by the legislature to preclude any creditors or subrogees from sharing in the proceeds of a wrongful death action. In support of this contention, the widow (petitioner) cites National Bank v. Podgorski (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 265, and In re Estate of Schmidt (1979), 79 Ill. App.3d 456. In the Podgorski case, State Farm made a settlement of $50,000 with the decedent's widow.