{
  "id": 3394652,
  "name": "INEZ SINGLETON, Adm'r of the Estate of Willie H. Washington, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants; (THE COUNTY OF COOK, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCOLE MIDWEST CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Singleton v. County of Cook",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-1272",
  "first_page": "994",
  "last_page": "996",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ill. App. 3d 994"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 N.E.2d 117",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. App. 2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2577847
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/75/0272-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.E.2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2939210
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/55/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.E.2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2525593
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/5/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.E.2d 881",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2965785
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "499"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/61/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 379,
    "char_count": 6046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.844,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0034260109901097e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5395279802027068
    },
    "sha256": "7ae189be0a8ba7248f3ab1ecca43866a1ee8cdceef1c51e0a21b35476d0929fb",
    "simhash": "1:a6da6cc9003ffd3e",
    "word_count": 944
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:14.469992+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "INEZ SINGLETON, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Willie H. Washington, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants.\u2014(THE COUNTY OF COOK, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCOLE MIDWEST CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from an order dismissing an amended count III of the County of Cook\u2019s third-party complaint which sought indemnification from Arc\u00f3le Midwest Corporation for all costs, attorney\u2019s fees, and other expenses in defending against plaintiff\u2019s action. The count in question was based upon an indemnification agreement incorporated into the construction contract entered into between Arc\u00f3le and the county.\nPlaintiffs brought this action against the county for the death of Willie H. Washington. They charged that Washington\u2019s death from injuries suffered while working on a county highway construction project was caused by the county\u2019s negligence and violations of the Structural Work Act. After answering plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, the county filed a third-party complaint against Washington\u2019s employer, Arc\u00f3le. Count III of the third-party complaint sought complete indemnity based upon the hold harmless provisions contained in the construction contract between Arc\u00f3le and the county which was executed on October 16, 1972. Arc\u00f3le agreed to \u201cindemnify and save harmless\u201d the county \u201cagainst all loss, damage or expense that it * * * may sustain as a result of any suits, actions or claims of any character.\u201d The trial court struck count III on the ground the hold harmless provisions were rendered void by legislative act effective September 23, 1971. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 29, par. 61.) The county then filed an amended count III again asserting the indemnity provisions of the construction contract, but seeking only to recover costs, attorney\u2019s fees and other expenses incurred by the county in defending against the plaintiffs\u2019 action and in prosecuting the third-party complaint. The trial court entered an order dismissing the amended count III of the third-party complaint and found no just reason to delay enforcement of or appeal from said order. In so holding, the court expressly relied on the provisions of section 1 of \u201cAn Act in relation to indemnity in certain contracts\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 29, par. 61) and also upon the holding of Davis v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 494, 336 N.E.2d 881.\nThe act in question provides as follows:\n\u201c\u00a761. Indemnification of person from person\u2019s own negligence\u2014 Effect \u2014 Enforcement. With respect to contracts or agreements, either public or private, for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of a building, structure, highway bridge, viaducts or other work dealing with construction, or for any moving, demolition or excavation connected therewith, every covenant, promise or agreement to indemnify or hold harmless another person from that person\u2019s own negligence is void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 29, par. 61.)\nIn Davis v. Commonwealth Edison Co., the court upheld the constitutionality of the foregoing statute and construed it to apply to indemnity agreements against structural work act liability as well as negligence.\nThe trial court in holding that the act rendered the entire indemnity agreement void including reimbursement for expenses and attorney\u2019s fees, filed a memorandum opinion. In that opinion, the trial court quoted the following from Davis:\n\u201cThe legislature in enacting section 1 may have considered that the widespread use of these agreements in the industry may have removed or reduced the incentives to protect workers and others from injury. 999 The statute would thwart attempts to avoid the consequences of liability and thereby insure a continuing motivation for persons responsible for construction activities to take accident prevention measures and provide safe working conditions.\u201d (61 Ill. 2d 494, 499.)\nThe trial court went on to state in its opinion: \u201cSurely included among the \u2018incentives to protect workers and others from injury\u2019, would be the avoidance of payment not only of the judgment itself, but also expenses and attorney\u2019s fees, which, in many instances, rise to substantial sums of money, as \u2018consequences of liability\u2019.\u201d We agree with the reasoning of the trial court and adhere to its decision. The indemnity agreement between county and Arc\u00f3le sought to do what the legislature had forbade, indemnify a person from his own negligence. As such, the agreement was void and wholly unenforceable.\nMoreover, expenses and attorney\u2019s fees are recoverable only where required by the specific terms of a written contract of indemnity. (Reese v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. (1972), 5 Ill. App. 3d 450, 283 N.E.2d 517, aff\u2019d (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 356, 303 N.E.2d 382.) In that case, the court held that an agreement to indemnify for costs does not obligate the indemnitor to pay attorney\u2019s fees. In Wiegel v. One LaSalle Co. (1966), 75 Ill. App. 2d 272, 221 N.E.2d 117, the court refused to allow attorney\u2019s fees or expenses because there was no express language in the contract providing such recovery. In the present case, the county relies on the language contained in the agreement that \u201cthe contractor shall \u2018indemnify and save harmless\u2019 the County against all loss, damage or expense that it may sustain as the result of any suits, actions or claims.\u201d The agreement did not even refer to attorney\u2019s fees and costs, and those items are not recoverable.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing amended count III of the third-party complaint is affirmed.\nOrder affirmed.\nSIMON, P. J., and McGILLICUDDY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barbara H. Fredericks, of Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Roy Peterson, Toni McNamara, and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "INEZ SINGLETON, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Willie H. Washington, Deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK et al., Defendants.\u2014(THE COUNTY OF COOK, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCOLE MIDWEST CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.)\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 76-1272\nOpinion filed October 19, 1977.\nBarbara H. Fredericks, of Pretzel, Stouffer, Nolan & Rooney, of Chicago, for appellant.\nLord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (C. Roy Peterson, Toni McNamara, and Hugh C. Griffin, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0994-01",
  "first_page_order": 1016,
  "last_page_order": 1018
}