Carmichael v. Professional Transportation, Inc.

2021 IL App (1st) 201386 (Ill. App., 2021)

Words & Phrases

Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Limits

Trial Judge

Sanjay T. Tailor

Appellate Judge

Gordon

Holding

No private right of action under 625 ILCS 5/8-101(c) against a contract carrier who fails to carry minimum limits of UIM coverage

Fact Summary

There is in the prescribed amount.

 

In 2010, plaintiff, Mary Terry Carmichael, who was an employee of Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific), was being transported between job sites in a van owned by defendant, Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI), when the van was struck by another vehicle, injuring her. Plaintiff twice filed suit against PTI, alleging that PTI’s vehicle insurance policy did not contain the minimum coverage required by section 8-101(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/8-101(c) (West 2010)).1 In the first suit, which was filed against Union Pacific, PTI, and PTI’s insurer, PTI filed affirmative defenses alleging that section 8-101(c) did not contain a private right of action and also filed a counterclaim alleging that section 8­101(c) was unconstitutional. The trial court found a private right of action and also dismissed PTI’s counterclaim because it found the statute constitutional. Plaintiff subsequently voluntarily dismissed her complaint, and PTI appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim. On appeal, the appellate court found that no private cause of action existed and that plaintiff’s complaint should have been dismissed, rendering the counterclaim moot. Carmichael v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 170075, ¶ 2. However, the Illinois Supreme Court vacated the judgment, finding that the counterclaim was not a proper counterclaim because it merely repeated PTI’s affirmative defenses and did not seek any affirmative relief. Carmichael v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2019 IL 123853, ¶ 1.

Back