CAROL BEHEENS and DIANE BEHRENS,Claimants, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought $100,000 each for personal injuries from the same occurrence that was already settled in circuit court for $100,000 each. The court dismissed the claim because the statutory limit had been satisfied by the settlement, applying setoff under the Court of Claims Act.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.8(d); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.24-6
Cases cited: Kurowski v. State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 215; Petersen v. State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 104, 110
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Attorney General (ROBERT J. NEIL F. HARTIGAN, SKLAMBERG, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- DAMAGEs-hit on tort awardr. Pursuant to section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act, there is a limitation of $lOO,OOO on any award of damages for a claim arising in tort, and section 26 of the Act provides that any award shall be subject to the right of setoff.
- P RACTICE AND PmcEoum-exceptions to sovereign immunity are strictly interpreted. The General Assembly provides for the terms and conditions under which suits for damages against the State are allowed, and those statutes providing exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity are to be strictly interpreted.
- DAMAGEs-reCOUery of statutory limit from other party sets o f f any claim against State. When a Claimant recovers the statutory limit of $lOO,OOO from another party to an accident giving right- to personal injuries, that recovery completely sets off any claim that may be had against the State.
- NEcLlcEracE-persotud injury-statutory limit recovered from third party-claim dismissed. A claim for personal injuries was dismissed where the record showed that the Claimants had cqncurrently filed an action against a third party in a circuit court based on the same occurrence and settled that action for an amount equal to the statutory limit for each Claimant, thereby completely setting off any claim that could be had against the State.
This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of Respondent to dismiss, due notice having been given the parties hereto and the Court being fully advised in the, premises:
The court finds that the instant claim is for personal injuries and was filed on June 18, 1987, seeking the maximum award of $l00,OOO apiece for both Claimants.
Section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.8(d)) provides for a $100,000 limitation on any Court of Claims award of damages in claims arising in tort. Further, section 26 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.24-6) provides that there shall be but one satisfaction of any claim or cause of action in this Court, and any recovery awarded by us shall be subject to the right of setoff.
Claimant concurrently filed another cause in the circuit court of Cook County entitled Behrens v . Ranahan, No. 85-L-26255. This cause arose from the same occurrence that gave rise to the instant claim. The circuit court action was settled for $100,000 apiece for both Claimants herein.
The terms and conditions governing suits for damages against the State as the sovereign are granted [*197] by the General Assembly and do not arise as a matter of
'I
common law or organic law. The statutes granting the exceptions to sovereign. immunity are strictly interpreted.
The precedents guiding the Court in the present claim are uniform, consistent, and numerous in their statement of the rule that recovery of the statutory limit of $100,000 from another party to an accident completely sets off any claim that may be had against the State. Kurowski v. State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. C1. 215; Petersen 0.State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. C1. 104,110.
It is therefore ordered that Respondent's motion be, and the same is, hereby granted, and the instant cause is hereby dismissed.