McCall v. Health Care Service Corp.

10 Citing cases

  1. Scheinfeld v. American Family Mut. Ins.

    624 F. Supp. 698 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 7 times

    As noted by Judge Hart in UNR, 607 F. Supp. at 865, every Illinois Appellate Court addressing the issue has agreed that § 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code preempts a punitive damage award for an insurer's bad faith and unfair dealing in refusing to settle a claim. Fisher v. Fidelity Deposit Co. of Maryland, 125 Ill.App.3d 632, 80 Ill.Dec. 880, 466 N.E.2d 332 (5th Dist. 1984); Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 75 Ill.Dec. 911, 458 N.E.2d 79 (1st Dist. 1983); McCall v. Health Care Service Corp., 117 Ill.App.3d 107, 72 Ill.Dec. 640, 452 N.E.2d 893 (4th Dist. 1983); Hoffman v. Allstate Insurance Co., 85 Ill.App.3d 631, 40 Ill.Dec. 925, 407 N.E.2d 156 (2d Dist. 1980); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill.App.3d 111, 13 Ill.Dec. 656, 371 N.E.2d 373 (3d Dist. 1978). Under this court's Erie obligations, the uniform result adopted by these decision cannot be disregarded absent "persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise." West v. AT T, 311 U.S. 223, 237, 61 S.Ct. 179, 183, 85 L.Ed. 139 (1940), quoted in UNR, 607 F. Supp. at 865-66.

  2. Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

    422 Mich. 594 (Mich. 1985)   Cited 408 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs' testimony to the effect that they felt disappointed, mad, and upset "d[id] not even approach the level of emotional distress contemplated by the Restatement drafters"

    The Illinois appellate courts have consistently rejected claims alleging "outrageous" conduct in the handling of insurance claims. In McCall v Health Care Service Corp, 117 Ill. App.3d 107; 452 N.E.2d 893 (1983), the court said that delays in paying hospitalization benefits and failure to provide the plaintiff with accurate information regarding the status of her claim, which resulted in an action by a hospital against an insured and garnishment of her wages, was not conduct so "outrageous or severe" as to amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress. See also Tobolt v Allstate Ins Co, n 2 supra, and Debolt v Mutual of Omaha, n 5 supra.

  3. Emerson v. American Bankers Insurance Co.

    223 Ill. App. 3d 929 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that compensatory damages are available for the "breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing"

    Other decisions have held that section 155 preempts punitive damages, but not compensatory damages. ( Calcagno v. Personalcare Health Management, Inc. (1991), 207 Ill. App.3d 493, 565 N.E.2d 1330; McCall v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983), 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 452 N.E.2d 893; Hoffman v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 407 N.E.2d 156.) Addressing the effect of the amendment to section 155, this court, in Kohlmeier v. Shelter Insurance Co. (1988), 170 Ill. App.3d 643, 525 N.E.2d 94, departed from Ledingham, holding that common law tort actions seeking punitive damages have been preempted by the statute.

  4. Salvator v. Admiral Merch. Motor Freight

    156 Ill. App. 3d 930 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    In Salvator v. Admiral Merchants Motor Freight, 156 Ill. App.3d 930, 109 Ill.Dec. 337, 509 N.E.2d 1349 (1987), the court upheld an award of $138,450.

    Illinois Sterling, Inc. v. KDI Corp. (1975), 33 Ill. App.3d 666, 338 N.E.2d 51. Plaintiff correctly notes that this court, in McCall v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983), 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 452 N.E.2d 893, specifically recognized a common law tort action for bad faith dealing in a case involving insurance. Defendant makes no specific argument regarding plaintiff's contention that a cause of action for the tort of bad faith dealing had been pleaded and proved.

  5. 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

    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) (same); Hoffman v. Allstate Insur., 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 40 Ill.Dec. 925, 407 N.E.2d 156 (2nd Dist. 1980) (same). This Court entered the melee in Premier Electrical Constr. v. United States Fidelity Guar. Co., No. 80C6689, 1985 WL 2386 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 5, 1984 August 26, 1985).

  6. 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."

    usty 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. See Chicago HMO, supra, 622 F. Supp. 489; Langendorf v. Travelers State Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 1103, 1107-08 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Getzendanner, J.); American Dental Ass'n v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., 625 F. Supp. 364, 367-69 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Plunkett, J.); Scheinfeld v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 624 F. Supp. 698, 701-03 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (Getzendanner, J.); Barr Co. v. Safeco Ins. Co., 583 F. Supp. 248, 255-56 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (Moran, J.); Raprager v. Allstate Ins. Co., 183 Ill. App.3d 847, 539 N.E.2d 787, 132 Ill.Dec. 224 (2d Dist. 1989); Kohlmeier v. Shelter Ins. Co., 170 Ill. App.3d 643, 656-57, 525 N.E.2d 94, 104, 121 Ill.Dec. 288, 298 (5th Dist. 1988); McCall v. Health Care Service Corp., 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 452 N.E.2d 893, 72 Ill.Dec. 640 (4th Dist. 1983); Hoffman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 407 N.E.2d 156, 40 Ill.Dec. 925 (2d Dist. 1980). Cf. Lynch v. Mid-America Fire Marine Ins. Co., 94 Ill. App.3d 21, 418 N.E.2d 421, 49 Ill.Dec. 567 (4th Dist. 1981) (superceded version of § 155 did not preempt claim for compensatory damages).

  7. Barr Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

    706 F. Supp. 616 (N.D. Ill. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    925 (2d Dist. 1980) (same), with Combs v. Insurance Co., 146 Ill. App.3d 957, 497 N.E.2d 503, 100 Ill.Dec. 525 (1st Dist. 1986) (holding preemption of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 458 N.E.2d 79, 75 Ill.Dec. 911 (1st Dist. 1983) (holding preemption of the tort arising from the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); Tobolt v. Allstate Ins. Co., 75 Ill. App.3d 57, 393 N.E.2d 1171, 30 Ill.Dec. 824 (1st Dist. 1979) (same); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill. App.3d 111, 371 N.E.2d 373, 13 Ill.Dec. 656 (3d Dist. 1978) (same). And see McCall v. Health Care Service Corp., 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 452 N.E.2d 893, 72 Ill.Dec. 640 (4th Dist. 1983) (holding that the tort exists, but not reaching preemption); Kaniuk v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 142 Ill. App.3d 1070, 492 N.E.2d 592, 97 Ill.Dec. 156 (1st Dist. 1986) (discussing preemption of punitive damages only, and citing Hoffman, supra, with approval). Most of the federal district courts examining the issue in this district have adopted the view that compensatory damages were not preempted.

  8. Cramer v. Ins. Exchange Agency

    174 Ill. 2d 513 (Ill. 1996)   Cited 325 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the statute was designed to punish insurers

    Consequently, I believe the preemptive scope of section 155 is more appropriately distinguishable on the basis of the statutory remedies it provides, rather than on whether the conduct is independently based in tort or contract. Thus, I adhere to that increasing trend of majority opinions which hold that section 155 preempts attorney fees and punitive damages, but not compensatory damages. W.E. O'Neil Construction Co., 721 F. Supp. at 998; Chicago HMO v. Trans Pacific Life Insurance Co., 622 F. Supp. 489 (N.D. Ill. 1985); Calcagno v. Personalcare Health Management, Inc., 207 Ill. App.3d 493 (1991); Kohlmeier v. Shelter Insurance Co., 170 Ill. App.3d 643 (1988); McCall v. Health Care Service Corp., 117 Ill. App.3d 107 (1983) ; Lynch v. Mid-America Fire Marine Insurance Co., 94 Ill. App.3d 21 (1981); Hoffman v. Allstate Insurance Co., 85 Ill. App.3d 631 (1980); Schienfield v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 624 F. Supp. (N.D. Ill. 1985); American Dental Ass'n v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection Insurance Co., 625 F. Supp. 364 (N.D. Ill. 1985); UNR Industries, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 607 F. Supp. 855 (N.D. Ill. 1984); see also Kaniuk v. Safeco Insurance Co., 142 Ill. App.3d 1070 (1986) (leaving question open as to compensatory damages); Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha, 56 Ill. App.3d 111 (1978) (same). In general, several factors support these decisions.

  9. Meier v. Aetna Life Cas. St. Fire Ins. Co.

    149 Ill. App. 3d 932 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 24 times
    Granting fees on appeal where the insurer's violation of section 155 was clear and the insurer failed to introduce any evidence or argument on appeal to justify such misconduct

    " ( Debolt v. Mutual of Omaha (1978), 56 Ill. App.3d 111, 116.) (See also McCall v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983), 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 111; Glenview Park District v. Redemptorist Fathers (1980), 89 Ill. App.3d 623, 629. But see M W Gear Co. v. AW Dynamometer, Inc. (1981), 97 Ill. App.3d 904.

  10. Mohr v. Dix Mutual County Fire Insurance

    143 Ill. App. 3d 989 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986)   Cited 41 times
    Holding lost profits on a collateral transaction must be within contemplation of the parties to be recoverable

    The statute does not limit recovery for the breach of contract but limits and refines recovery for the tort of vexatious and unreasonable delay. (See generally Kinney v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance co. (1983), 120 Ill. App.3d 294, 458 N.E.2d 79; McCall v. Health Care Service Corp. (1983), 117 Ill. App.3d 107, 452 N.E.2d 893; Hoffmanv. Allstate Insurance Co. (1980), 85 Ill. App.3d 631, 407 N.E.2d 156; Tobolt v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1979), 75 Ill. App.3d 57, 393 N.E.2d 1171.) The jury properly considered the issue of lost profits.