 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kennedy v. Grimsley10/10/2005
This court granted defendants' application for leave to appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill. 2d R. 308) to consider whether plaintiff's claim for punitive damages for alleged fraud in inducing an attorney-client relationship is barred by section 2-1115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1115 (West 2004)). We find that it is.
Facts
The third amended complaint filed by plaintiff Judith Kennedy, administrator of the estate of Edith Nesmon, consists of four counts. Count I alleges that defendant Leanna Karnopp Grimsley (hereinafter "defendant") committed legal malpractice by failing to file a medical malpractice lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Count II alleges that defendant was an employee of the law firm of Grimsley & Grimsley, P.C., (hereinafter "law firm") and it asserts liability based on respondeat superior. Neither of those counts is at issue in this appeal.
Count III of plaintiff's complaint alleges that at the initial meeting with defendant on January 18, 2000, plaintiff told defendant that she was seeking an attorney who was skilled in handling medical negligence cases and defendant told plaintiff that she was "well familiar" with such cases. Defendant also told plaintiff that she was familiar with the legal principles governing such cases in the State of California. According to plaintiff, defendant made these statements with the intent to deceive plaintiff and induce her to enter into an attorney-client relationship. Plaintiff asserts that defendant in fact had no prior experience in medical negligence cases, had no knowledge of California law and was not competent to try a medical negligence case. Plaintiff hired defendant in reliance on her false statements and defendant subsequently failed to file suit prior to the running of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Count IV re-alleges the same claim against the law firm on the basis of respondeat superior.
Defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss counts III and IV on various grounds, which the trial court denied. However, the court identified the issue of the application of section 2-1115 of the Code as a question of law suitable for immediate appeal under Rule 308, and this appeal followed.
Analysis
Standard of Review
The scope of review in an interlocutory appeal under Rule 308 is ordinarily limited to the question certified by the trial court, which is reviewed de novo. See Thompson v. Gordon, 356 Ill. App. 3d 447, 827 N.E.2d 983 (2005). In addition, questions of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review. Schweickert v. AG Services of America, Inc., 355 Ill. App. 3d 439, 823 N.E.2d 213 (2005).
Section 2-115 of the Code provides:
"* 2-1115. Punitive damages not recoverable in healing art and legal malpractice cases. In all cases, whether in tort, contract or otherwise, in which the plaintiff seeks damages by reason of legal, medical, hospital, or other healing art malpractice, no punitive, exemplary, vindictive or aggravated damages shall be allowed." 735 ILCS 5/2-1115 (West 2004).
Despite the broad language of section 2-1115 and its seemingly sweeping prohibition against punitive damages in legal malpractice cases, this court has held that section 2-1115 does not apply to complaints alleging common law fraud. In Cripe v. Leiter, 291 Ill. App. 3d 155, 683 N.E.2d 516 (1997), the plaintiff alleged that the billing statements of the defendant attorney contained false statements regarding the number of hours spent on certain trust and guardianship matters. We found that punitive damages w
Page 1 2 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|