State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova

19 Citing cases

  1. Givens v. Renteria

    347 Ill. App. 3d 934 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 4 times

    We decline to substitute our judgment for that of the arbitration panel.         As to defendants' next claim, that to bar rejection of an arbitration award is only proper if there is a violation of Supreme Court Rule 237, defendants cite to State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). In Kazakova, this court reversed a trial court's decision to bar a rejection of an arbitration.

  2. Reyes v. Menard, Inc.

    2012 Ill. App. 112555 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 13 times
    In Reyes, the plaintiff was one week late in responding to interrogatories and failed to seek leave to file her answers.

    The express purpose of Rule 91(b) was to ‘prevent the abuse of the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process.’ State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033 [234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254] (1998), citing 145 Ill.2d R. 91(b), Committee Comments, at 1xx. The drafters' concern was with parties' intentional disregard for the arbitration process.

  3. Campuzano v. Peritz

    376 Ill. App. 3d 485 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    In Campuzano, the reviewing court noted "[i]n holding that open defiancé of a court order entered to compel discovery in anticipation of an arbitration hearing cannot form the predicate for a debarment order, Amro stands alone" and that the rationale in Amro had been rejected in a number of cases.

    The point of Rule 91(b) is to "prevent the abuse of the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process." State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1033, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998), citing 145 Ill.2d R. 91(b), Committee Comments, at 1xx. The appropriate inquiry is whether defendants participated in arbitration in good faith and in a meaningful manner.

  4. Nix v. Whitehead

    368 Ill. App. 3d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    This is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1031 (1998). "Interpreting Supreme Court rules involves the same principles that are applicable when interpreting statutes. [Citation.] The primary rule of statutory construction is that the court should ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature."

  5. Zietara v. Diamlerchrysler Corp.

    838 N.E.2d 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    In Zietara v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 361 Ill. App. 3d 819 (2005), this court came to a similar conclusion on similar facts.

    However, to the extent that the issue here involves interpretation of a supreme court rule and the arbitrators' authority, these are questions of law subject to de novo review by this court. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1028, 1031, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). Plaintiff contends that the trial court did not apply the proper standard in finding that he was barred from rejecting the arbitration award.

  6. Benson v. Abbott

    326 Ill. App. 3d 599 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 6 times

    Judicial interpretation of a Supreme Court Rule is a question of law. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill.App.3d 1028, 1031, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). This court reviews questions of law de novo.State Farm, 299 Ill.App.3d at 1031, 234 Ill.Dec. 88, 702 N.E.2d at 257.

  7. State Farm Ins. v. Rodrigues

    324 Ill. App. 3d 736 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    In Rodrigues, a subrogation action in which the defendant struck the parked and unoccupied vehicle of the plaintiff's insured, neither an employee of plaintiff nor plaintiff's insured was present at the arbitration.

    145 Ill.2d R. 91(a), (b); Goldman, 307 Ill. App.3d at 172. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 237(b) (166 Ill.2d R. 237(b)), which is applicable to arbitration hearings (166 Ill.2d R. 90(g); State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1032 (1998)), the court may impose sanctions against a party for failure to appear, including the debarment of a party from maintaining a claim pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(c). 166 Ill.2d Rule 219(c)(iii); 166 Ill.2d R. 90(g). A party who appears through counsel is still subject to sanctions for failure to appear pursuant to a Rule 237 notice.

  8. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Jacquez

    322 Ill. App. 3d 652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 8 times
    In Jacquez, State Farm, as subrogee of its insured, filed an action against Jacquez to recover sums paid as a result of an accident involving its insured allegedly caused by Jacquez. Jacquez, 322 Ill. App. 3d at 654.

    In conjunction with this argument, defendant contends that the court could have imposed alternative sanctions that would have been less harsh, such as barring his testimony at trial or assessing fees and costs. Where a party to mandatory arbitration proceedings appeals from sanctions imposed, the standard of review is an abuse of discretion.State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1031, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court rules arbitrarily.

  9. Hornburg v. Esparza

    316 Ill. App. 3d 801 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that while the Illinois rule states that service upon one of several attorneys is sufficient, when two attorneys represent a party in different capacities, then service on one of them did not constitute valid service for all purposes

    Generally, the decision to bar a party from rejecting an arbitration award is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. See Easter Seal Rehabilitation Center for Will-Grundy Counties, Inc. v. Current Development Corp., 307 Ill. App.3d 48, 716 N.E.2d 809 (1999); State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 702 N.E.2d 254 (1998). Where, however, the issue involves an interpretation of the Supreme Court Rules, it is a question of law subject to de novo review by this court.

  10. Schmidt v. Joseph

    315 Ill. App. 3d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 22 times
    Reviewing court may review orders that are a step in the procedural progression to the order appealed from

    The purposes of the supreme court rules on mandatory arbitration are to prevent abuse in the arbitration process and to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process. State Farm Insurance Co. v. Kazakova, 299 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1033, 702 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1998). As the Committee Comments to Rule 91 state: