{ "id": 1599283, "name": "ALAN LAATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Laatz v. Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency", "decision_date": "2003-02-04", "docket_number": "No. 2\u201401\u20141159", "first_page": "863", "last_page": "867", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "336 Ill. App. 3d 863" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "135 Ill. App. 3d 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3600324 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "144" }, { "page": "143" }, { "page": "144" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/135/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 Ill. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3282947 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/148/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ill. App. 3d 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2534792 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/210/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 Ill. App. 3d 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3581576 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "667" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/164/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5577773 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/70/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 Ill. App. 3d 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 171612 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/323/0168-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 7273, "ocr_confidence": 0.776, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08, "percentile": 0.37701252080719766 }, "sha256": "4b9c4d41bd6f5a54f0b508477a763d95c4b55062554133ae40ddbe3ac2787d4f", "simhash": "1:7a97e56228d9e4d4", "word_count": 1148 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:43:40.180592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ALAN LAATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HUTCHINSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Alan Laatz, appeals from the circuit court\u2019s denial of his application to vacate an arbitration award rejecting his claim for uninsured motorist benefits against defendant, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency. Plaintiff argues that the court erred by dismissing his application because the arbitration award was achieved through \u201cundue means\u201d contrary to section 12(a)(1) of the Uniform Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) (710 ILCS 5/12(a)(l) (West 2000)). More specifically, he argues that the arbitrator improperly considered the status of his worker\u2019s compensation case in making the arbitration award. We affirm.\nIn accordance with defendant\u2019s coverage agreement, plaintiffs claim for uninsured motorist benefits against defendant was submitted to arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA). On May 22, 2001, the arbitrator issued her award. The arbitrator found that plaintiffs comparative negligence in a March 10, 1997, auto collision was greater than 50% and denied plaintiffs uninsured motorist claim.\nOn August 17, 2001, plaintiff filed with the circuit court an \u201cApplication to Vacate an Arbitration Award in an Uninsured Motorist Claim.\u201d Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs application, contending that the application failed to state a cause of action under section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act. On September 19, 2001, the court granted defendant\u2019s motion with prejudice. Plaintiff timely appeals.\nPlaintiff contends that, as demonstrated by the following colloquy, the arbitration award was achieved through undue means contrary to section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act.\n\u201cMS. KELLY [the arbitrator]: *** This is the end of this arbitration. I have 30 days in which to get the opinion in. Gentlemen, you\u2019re going to give me some sleepless nights. This is not an easy case. In fact, it\u2019s the most difficult arbitration I\u2019ve had through [AAA], although I\u2019ve been on some other panels where there were these kind of severe injuries.\nYou know, I\u2019ve got a situation where we\u2019re not quibbling over 20-to 30-percent comparative here, but we\u2019re quibbling over whether or not if there\u2019s a verdict for or against. I don\u2019t see where I have much of a choice, except for those two choices.\nJust one question: Is the [worker\u2019s compensation] case still open?\nMR. O\u2019REILLY [defense attorney]: Yes.\nMR. TURNER [plaintiffs attorney]: Counsel answered you in a very swift manner. Why is the comp case still open, counsel?\nMR. O\u2019REILLY: There\u2019s no PB in it. There\u2019s no lump.\nMS. KELLY: No, there was no \u2014 well\u2014\nMR. TURNER: That doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s still open though.\nMR. O\u2019REILLY: I mean it\u2019s not closed.\u201d\nAccording to plaintiff, by questioning the parties about the status of the worker\u2019s compensation case, the arbitrator clearly indicated that she wanted to know if there was another source available to compensate plaintiff for his injuries if she found his comparative negligence to be 50% or greater. Plaintiff asserts that the status of the worker\u2019s compensation case had no legitimate connection to the negligence determination and that the arbitrator should not have been influenced by facts not germane to her determination.\nOur review of an arbitration award is extremely limited. Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. City of Chicago, 323 Ill. App. 3d 168, 174 (2001). Section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act enumerates various grounds on which an arbitration award may be vacated by the court. That section provides that an arbitration award can be vacated where the award \u201cwas procured by corruption, fraud[,] or other undue means.\u201d 710 ILCS 5/12(a)(1) (West 2000). The party challenging the arbitration award carries the burden of proving that the award is contrary to section 12(a)(1), and the court will grant \u201c[e]very reasonable presumption *** in favor of the finality and validity of the award.\u201d Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 575, 70 Ill. App. 3d 518, 521 (1979).\nThe phrase \u201cundue means\u201d in section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act \u201chas been interpreted as akin to fraud and corruption; it refers to some aspect of the arbitrator\u2019s decision or decision-making process which was obtained in an unfair manner and beyond the normal processes contemplated by the act.\u201d Hahn v. A.G. Becker Paribas, Inc., 164 Ill. App. 3d 660, 667 (1987). Defendant argues that the arbitrator\u2019s inquiry concerning the status of the worker\u2019s compensation case was not prejudicial or partial because defendant had already provided the arbitrator with the amount of worker\u2019s compensation payments that had been paid to plaintiff so that it would receive a setoff against any potential arbitration award. Moreover, defendant maintains that the arbitrator\u2019s question was proper because any arbitration award to plaintiff would be reduced by the total amount of worker\u2019s compensation payments plaintiff had received, including any received after the hearing was conducted. We agree with defendant\u2019s contention.\nA plaintiffs damages will be reduced to prevent duplicate payments for the same injury. Greenawalt v. State Farm Insurance Co., 210 Ill. App. 3d 543, 547 (1991), aff\u2019d sub nom. Hoglund v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 148 Ill. 2d 272 (1992). If an insurance company seeks a damages reduction for any prior compensation paid to a plaintiff, it must submit the issue to the arbitrator or its setoff claim may be forfeited. Schutt v. Allstate Insurance Co., 135 Ill. App. 3d 136, 144 (1985). In Schutt, the insurance company defendant argued, like plaintiff here, that informing an arbitrator of a setoff claim before the arbitrator made his or her damages determination \u201cinfuse[d] unwarranted and unnecessary prejudice into the proceedings.\u201d Schutt, 135 Ill. App. 3d at 143. The Schutt court concluded that, because the defendant\u2019s insurance policy provided for all disputes regarding the amount payable to be determined by arbitration, the possibility of some prejudice resulting from the arbitrator\u2019s knowledge of a setoff claim was unavoidable. Schutt, 135 Ill. App. 3d at 144. Here, as in Schutt, defendant\u2019s coverage agreement required that an arbitrator resolve the amount of payment due plaintiff for uninsured motorist benefits. For this reason, defendant\u2019s setoff claim was also at issue during the arbitration.\nTherefore, we conclude that the arbitrator\u2019s inquiry was not improper because the arbitrator was aware of the information from defendant\u2019s request for a setoff. The inquiry certainly did not rise to the level of fraudulent or corrupt conduct prohibited by section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, we agree with the circuit court that plaintiffs application failed to state a cause of action under section 12(a)(1) of the Arbitration Act.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nBOWMAN and BYRNE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE HUTCHINSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "John W. Turner, of Law Offices of John W. Turner, of Chicago, for appellant.", "John F. O\u2019Reilly, of O\u2019Reilly Law Offices, of Wheaton, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALAN LAATZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201401\u20141159\nOpinion filed February 4, 2003.\nRehearing denied March 11, 2003.\nJohn W. Turner, of Law Offices of John W. Turner, of Chicago, for appellant.\nJohn F. O\u2019Reilly, of O\u2019Reilly Law Offices, of Wheaton, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0863-01", "first_page_order": 881, "last_page_order": 885 }