Chicago Injury Lawyer Blog

Illinois Personal Injury Settlements: Healthcare Liens

August 17, 2011 | John J. Malm

When a Plaintiff settles his personal injury claim, he may also have one or more liens against the amount of the recovery. Healthcare liens against a settlement may be asserted by the medical providers who have treated and rehabilitated the Plaintiff after suffering an injury. These liens are covered by the Health Care Services Lien Act. 770 ILCS 23/1, et seq. Any licensed hospital, doctor, or physical therapist which has provided medical services may elect to place a lien on the claim.

If the Plaintiff recovers a settlement or judgment, notice of the recovery must be given to each lien holder. The lien holder may seek payment of the amount of reasonable charges which remain unpaid. The Health Care Services Lien Act places limitations on the amount a lien holder can recover from the settlement or judgment.
Continue reading

Illinois Uninsured/Underinsured Claims

June 7, 2011 | John J. Malm

An uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM) claim often arises after a car accident. If the person at-fault for the accident flees the scene and is unable to be located, or if the person at-fault does not have insurance or has inadequate insurance, an uninsured/underinsured claim (sometimes called, “UM/UIM”) should be brought immediately. UM/UIM claims often arise in pedestrian accidents, bicycle accidents, and hit & run accidents.

In a typical liability car accident case, notice to the other party need not be given before filing a complaint. Contrastingly, when making a UM/UIM claim, there are strict notice provisions that must be met before the claim can proceed. A UM/UIM claim is made against the Plaintiff’s own insurance company, and the requirements for the notice provisions may be found in the Plaintiff’s insurance contract. In most instances, it is best to have your attorney inform the insurance company of the claim, in writing, via certified mail, as soon as possible. Giving notice and demanding arbitration under the policy is not the equivalent of filing a lawsuit. It merely informs the insurance company that a claim exists, and it allows the insurer to begin investigating the claim. Failure to provide timely notice with a proper demand for arbitration can result in waiver of the claim, even if there is no prejudice to the insurer.
Continue reading

Arbitration in Illinois Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claims

May 4, 2011 | John J. Malm

The biggest distinction between filing a lawsuit against an individual for a car accident and filing an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim (UM/UIM claim) against an insurance carrier is that the latter will be sent to arbitration for adjudication. Illinois law requires insurance companies to include arbitration clauses in all insurance contracts containing UM coverage (215 ILCS 5/143a). Additionally, many insurance companies have arbitration clauses in their UIM insurance contracts. Illinois utilizes arbitration as a means of providing a more efficient means for those with a UM/UIM claim to have their case heard and have a just decision reached. Medical bills from a car accident add up quickly. The sooner a result can be obtained, the better.

To initiate the arbitration, the insured’s counsel must send a written demand for arbitration to the insurance company. The demand for arbitration is akin to filing a lawsuit. The demand must be clearly stated and sent within the time specified by the insurance policy. The demand should include information about the insured and name the insured’s arbitrator. The Insurance company will then name their own arbitrator. Then, both arbitrators will select a third “neutral” arbitrator within forty-five days to complete the panel. If the third arbitrator is not selected within the allotted time, either party may request that the case be sent to the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Some insurance contracts provide that all UM/UIM arbitrations be sent to the AAA. When the AAA hears the arbitration, they may choose to use a single arbitrator, or a panel of three.
Continue reading

Damages: Setoffs in Illinois Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Claims

March 1, 2011 | John J. Malm

A setoff is a defense to a legal judgment for damages. A setoff can be either partial or total. When an insured party is making a claim against their insurance company for an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist claim (UM/UIM claim) for an auto accident, bike accident, or pedestrian accident, the amount awarded in the claim may be reduced or “setoff” by any amount already covered from the at-fault motorist. A setoff is used to prevent double recovery, as compensatory damages are designed to make a person whole, not to punish the other party or provide a windfall for the insured.

A setoff often applies in an underinsured motorist claim. Recovery from the underinsured motorist is deducted from an arbitration award against the underinsured motorist carrier to prevent double recovery. For a setoff to be considered, the insurance company must submit the claim to the arbitrator. Unlike issues involving coverage, which are the domain of the courts, any disputes over damages must be presented to the arbitrator or they are considered waived.
Continue reading

Illinois Dram Shop Liability Limits Raised

January 21, 2011 | John J. Malm

Under the Illinois Liquor Control Act (“Dram Shop Act”), third parties who are injured by an intoxicated person may have a cause of action for damages against the seller of alcoholic liquor, who by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, causes the intoxication of such person. In many cases, the Act provides a remedy to individuals who are innocent victims injured in car accidents and bar fights. The Act provides no remedy for intoxicated persons who themselves are injured.

The amount of damages that may be sought against a bar or restaurant under the Act is limited in amount by statute and is specified by year.

Illinois Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Claims

January 1, 2011 | John J. Malm

The decision in Nicholson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. is a win for automobile insurance policyholders in Illinois. It also imposes a new obligation on insurance carriers to obtain a signed coverage election form before binding coverage, when the insured makes a “material change” in the policy.

The Illinois Supreme Court has denied an appeal by State Farm Insurance, thus, allowing to stand the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court in Nicholson v. State Farm Insurance, No. 2-08-0639 (2nd Dist. 2010) construing the obligations of an insurance carrier to provide underinsured motorist coverage pursuant to Section 143a–2 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/143a–2 (West 1998). Under the decision, “whenever liability coverage is increased above that provided under the previous policy, insurers must again offer UM (“uninsured motorist”) coverage equal to liability coverage and obtain a signed election declining such equal coverage.” The decision represents an expansion of consumer rights for purchasers of automobile insurance in Illinois in those instances in which UM coverage is elected in amount that is less than the amount of BI (“bodily injury liability”). Previous to the decision announced in Nicholson, only new “applicants” (not existing insureds) were required to be given an offer of coverage. Now, every insured must sign an election of coverage form before any material change in the policy is made, assuming they are selecting coverage for UM that is less than BI.
Continue reading