Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

J. Tarkowski v. State of Illinois

33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 116 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1979-07-27 No. 76-CC-1172
Disposition: (No. 76-CC-1172-Claim denied.)
Cite as: J. Tarkowski v. State of Illinois, 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 116 (1979)

J. TARKOWSKI, Claimant, u. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought damages for property damage from a highway hole. After settling with the state's insurer and receiving full payment, he requested attorney's fees and costs. The court denied the claim because the settlement released the state from further liability.

Claim type: Property Damage

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. PRACTICE AND PRocEoum-releases. Where Claimant voluntarily settled his claim with insurer of State and executed consent to dismissal of the claim he is not entitled to make a claim for attorney’s fees and costs based on the original cause of action.

PER CURIAM.

This is a claim for property damage alleged to have been caused as a result of negligence of the State of Illinois on November 10, 1974, as a result of a hole in the highway.

[*117] Subsequent to the filing of his claim, Claimant settled his case with the insurance company representing the State of Illinois and executed a consent to a dismissal of the claim and received the full amount of his claim.

He now requests this Court to award him attorney’s fees of $50.00 and costs of $10.00.

It is the Court’s opinion that Claimant, having voluntarily settled his claim, has released the State of Illinois and is not entitled thereafter to again make a claim based on the same original cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that this claim be, and the same is, denied.

Official volume 33 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1980 – July 1, 1979–June 30, 1980)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.