{
  "id": 3613742,
  "name": "MOISE PIERRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE DAVIS et al., d/b/a Gladys Restaurant and Lounge, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pierre v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 86-2778",
  "first_page": "759",
  "last_page": "762",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 759"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "384 N.E.2d 938",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 3d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3315192
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/67/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 N.E.2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 3d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3386562
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "239"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/52/0237-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 6306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.372760438989138e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7955212832871723
    },
    "sha256": "48649d0897b5837e17ec325c0c457d45d278ee7eff1a475d65232d31c2d7966d",
    "simhash": "1:349eee6dc8aabd03",
    "word_count": 993
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:33.943810+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MOISE PIERRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE DAVIS et al., d/b/a Gladys Restaurant and Lounge, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE BILANDIC\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal involves issues concerning the interpretation and enforcement of the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (Fund). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.82 et seq.\nPlaintiff was employed by the Joseph Triner Corporation. On January 12, 1982, plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment while making a delivery to the defendant restaurant. Triner was insured for worker\u2019s compensation coverage by the U.S. Insurance Group. Plaintiff received $6,983.56 in worker\u2019s compensation benefits from U.S. Insurance Group.\nOn June 20, 1983, plaintiff filed this third-party action against the defendant, charging negligence. Thereafter, an intervening petition was filed by plaintiffs employer \u201cfor the use of U.S. Insurance Group\u201d to recover the $6,983.56 it paid to the plaintiff based on its lien under the Workers\u2019 Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq).\nAt the time plaintiff filed suit, defendant restaurant was insured against general liability claims under a policy issued by Kent Insurance Company. Thereafter, Kent Insurance became insolvent and the defense against plaintiff\u2019s claim was undertaken by the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.82 et seq.\nAfter a jury verdict, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant restaurant in the sum $6,000 plus costs of $141.60.\nDefendant filed a post-trial motion wherein it urged that the judgment be deemed satisfied under the \u201ccovered claim\u201d and \u201cnon-duplication of recovery\u201d provisions of the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund. Defendant contends that the Fund prevents plaintiff from recovering the judgment because the entire judgment would be due from the fund to U.S. Insurance Group for the $6,986.56 worker\u2019s compensation payment it made to plaintiff. The trial court denied defendant's motion and this appeal followed.\nThe Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund is a not-for-profit association created by the Illinois legislature to limit the impact on the public, \u201cclaimants and policyholders,\u201d of losses arising out of insurer insolvencies. (Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 237, 239, 367 N.E.2d 469, later appeal (1978), 67 Ill. App. 3d 398, 384 N.E.2d 938.) The Fund limits its obligations only to those claims falling within the statutory definition of a \u201ccovered claim.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.84\u20143.) Since all Illinois licensed insurers contribute to the Illinois Guaranty Fund, the philosophy of the Fund is to have all potential claims against the Fund\u2019s assets reduced by a solvent insurer, not the fund, wherever possible. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.96.\nThe \u201cCovered claim\u201d provisions provide in pertinent part:\n\u201c(b) \u2018Covered claim\u2019 does not include:\n* * *\n(ii) any claim for any amount due any *** insurer *** as subrogated recoveries or otherwise. No such claim held by a[n] *** insurer ***, based on subrogation rights, may be asserted in any legal action against a person insured under a policy issued by an insolvent company other than to the extent such claim exceeds the Fund obligation limitations set forth in section 537.2 of this Code.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par 1065.84-3.\nIt is clear that the legislature did not want the assets of the Fund depleted to reimburse solvent insurance companies for payments made to claimants or their insured under policies for which they received a premium. It is also clear that the legislature intended to protect individual insureds of the insolvent company from claims for reimbursement by the solvent insured. Therefore, it would counteract the purposes of the Fund to allow a solvent insurer to be reimbursed by proceeds from the Fund.\nIn the case at bar, U.S. Insurance Group has a lien on the plaintiff\u2019s judgment for the entire $6,983.56 worker\u2019s compensation payment it made to the plaintiff. Because of this lien, the entire $6,141.60 judgment entered against defendant is an amount due an insurer as subrogated recovery or otherwise. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.84\u20143.) Not only is plaintiff precluded from recovering the judgment from the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, under the facts of this case he cannot assert a claim for such judgment against the insured defendant since it is the \u201cperson insured\u201d under a policy issued by an insolvent company.\nHowever, if the judgment against the defendant exceeded the amount of the worker\u2019s compensation lien of $6,983.56, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the excess from the defendant or the Fund. For example, if the judgment against the defendant was $50,000 and the worker\u2019s compensation lien was $7,000, section 534.3(b)(ii) would only preclude the plaintiff or the worker\u2019s compensation insurer from asserting any claim for the first $7,000 of the judgment since that amount would be an \u201camount due an insurer\u201d under the statute. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985,. ch. 73, par. 1065.84\u20143.) The plaintiff (the injured worker) would be entitled to recover the balance from the defendant or the Fund. In addition, although the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund act does prohibit any insurer from recovering any benefits from the defendant insured by an insolvent company or from the Guaranty Fund, the subrogating insurer still has the same rights against the estate of the insolvent insurer as it would have without the Guaranty Fund act.\nTherefore, the order of the trial court denying defendant\u2019s post-trial motion is reversed and the judgment against defendant is declared satisfied as a matter of law.\nIt is not necessary to address defendant\u2019s remaining argument on appeal regarding the \u201cnon-duplication of recovery\u201d provision of the Fund. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 73, par. 1065.96.\nReversed.\nSCARIANO, P.J., and HARTMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE BILANDIC"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh C. Griffin, Don W. Fowler, and Sandra S. Yamate, all of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Richard J. Grossman and Jeffrey M. Brown, both of Steinberg, Burtker & Grossman, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MOISE PIERRE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE DAVIS et al., d/b/a Gladys Restaurant and Lounge, Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 86\u20142778\nOpinion filed December 29, 1987.\n\u2014Rehearing denied January 26, 1988.\nHugh C. Griffin, Don W. Fowler, and Sandra S. Yamate, all of Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago, for appellants.\nRichard J. Grossman and Jeffrey M. Brown, both of Steinberg, Burtker & Grossman, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0759-01",
  "first_page_order": 781,
  "last_page_order": 784
}