Carmichael v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

2018 IL App (1st) 170075 (Ill. App., 2018)

Words & Phrases

Mandatory Insurance

Trial Judge

Sophia H. Hall

Appellate Judge

Mason

Holding

Mandatory coverage for UM and UIM statute does not give rise to private cause of action.

Fact Summary

Plaintiff Mary Carmichael was injured in a car accident while she was a passenger in a van owned and operated by defendant Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI). Carmichael brought suit against PTI, alleging that PTI failed to obtain the required limits of uninsured (UM) and underinsured (UIM) coverage under section 8-101(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/8-101(c) (West 2010)). PTI argued as an affirmative defense that no private right of action could be implied under section 8­ 101(c). PTI also filed the counterclaim at issue in this appeal, challenging the constitutionality of section 8-101(c).  The trial court found that a private right of action could be implied under section 8-101(c)    and    dismissed    PTI’s     counterclaim,    finding     that   the    section     survived constitutional scrutiny. Following Carmichael’s voluntary dismissal of her claim against PTI, PTI appealed the dismissal of its counterclaim. We find that we do not need to reach the constitutional issues raised by PTI because section 8-101(c) does not give rise to a private right of action. Therefore, Carmichael’s complaint against PTI should have been dismissed. Accordingly, PTI’s counterclaim is moot.

Back