{
  "id": 2916171,
  "name": "Pauline Kaesberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred Stafford, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kaesberg v. Stafford",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 70-161",
  "first_page": "59",
  "last_page": "60",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 Ill. App. 3d 59"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 Ill.App.2d 468",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2901274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/101/0468-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 3260,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08567816115920272
    },
    "sha256": "ad255470aa7e62c941b8f24703b2f9398e6fb8be589f582c1c1b9504654aeb3e",
    "simhash": "1:272241b23e2d34cb",
    "word_count": 486
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:19.595106+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pauline Kaesberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred Stafford, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff appeals from a judgment of the trial court of St. Clair County granting the defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nPlaintiff filed this suit alleging that she received personal injuries in an automobile collision, resulting from defendant\u2019s negligence. The collision involved three automobiles, one operated by defendant, Mildred Stafford, an automobile operated by Andrew Green, who was uninsured, and an automobile operated by plaintiff.\nPrior to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff filed an uninsured motorist claim against her insurance carrier. The policy provided for binding arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. An arbitrator was appointed and in February, 1968, a hearing was held. Subsequently the arbitrator awarded the plaintiff $4,400.\nPlaintiff then filed this action against the defendant, the insured motorist. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment alleging in substance that the plaintiff was barred from recovery against the defendant because she had received an award under the uninsured motorist provisions of her automobile insurance policy. The motion further stated that the plaintiff was entitled to only one recovery for her alleged injury. The court granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nDefendant-appellee cites no authorities which disclose any tenable theory under which plaintiff was barred from recovering against defendant because she had received an award under the uninsured motorist provision of her own policy. The only conceivable reason the trial court could have dismissed plaintiff\u2019s cause of action was on the theory advanced in the motion that there could be no contribution between joint tort feasors.\nPlaintiff\u2019s uninsured motorist recovery was based upon a contract between plaintiff and her insurer. (Mid-Central Mutual Casualty Co. v. Spanjer, 101 Ill.App.2d 468.) The arbitrator\u2019s incidental ruling that the uninsured motorist negligently caused plaintiff\u2019s injuries was solely for the purpose of determining whether the insurer was liable under the contract, and if so, the extent of that liability. It did not convert the action from contract to tort, and plaintiff\u2019s cause of action against the instant defendant could not be extinguished on the theory that plaintiff had released or secured full satisfaction from a joint tort feasor.\nWe also fail to see how plaintiff would obtain a double recovery if she were successful in her suit against the defendant, for by the express terms of plaintiff\u2019s insurance agreement her insurer is entitled to the proceeds of all recovery in this suit up to $4,400.\nFor the aforementioned reasons, the trial court\u2019s order of summary judgment on defendant\u2019s motion is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court of St. Clair County, Illinois, for trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nEBERSPACHER and JONES, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roberts, Gundlach & Lee, of Belleville, (Richard M. Roessler, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Brady, Donovan & Hatch, of Belleville, (Robert L. Gagen, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pauline Kaesberg, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred Stafford, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 70-161;\nFifth District\nFebruary 29, 1972.\nRoberts, Gundlach & Lee, of Belleville, (Richard M. Roessler, of counsel,) for appellant.\nBrady, Donovan & Hatch, of Belleville, (Robert L. Gagen, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0059-01",
  "first_page_order": 79,
  "last_page_order": 80
}