LOUIS F. BOWMAN and BEVERLY A. BOWMAN, Claimants, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought indemnity and/or contribution from the State. The court initially denied the State's motion to dismiss, but the case was later dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation for dismissal.
Cases cited: Doyle v. Rhodes (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 1, 461 N.E.2d 382
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NOTICE-notice requirement-applicable only to personal injuries action. The defendant, in a lawsuit arising out of damages related to a State contractual services agreement, need not file a timely notice of intent to file a claim with the Court of Claims in order to pursue an action for indemnity and/or contribution where the action is not one for personal injuries.
- CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY-COntTUCt did not indemnify State against own negligence-contractual services agreement-ef fect of workers’ compensation benefits on suit. Where the defendants in a lawsuit for damages arising out of a State contractual services agreement sought indemnification and/or contribution from the State in the Court of Claims, the State’smotion to dismiss was denied, where the release and indemnity provisions of the “Supplementary Provisions” of the contractual services agreement involved did not, by its own express terms, indemnify the State against its own negligence; and the fact that the injured party received workers’ compensation benefits did not bar the action.
ORDER
RAUCCI, J. This cause coming on to be heard on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and Claimants’ response thereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, Finds, that the claim for indemnity and/or contribution accrued upon the filing of the complaint of Howard L. Shelton on October 14, 1983, in the circuit court for Madison County.
The action in this Court was filed on September 26, 1985, which was within the two (2) years statute of limitations, and the Court further, Finds, that the Release and Indemnity provisions of the “Supplementary Provisions” of the “Contractual Services Agreement” does not, by express terms, indemnify Respondent against its own negligence, and therefore the Claimant states a cause of action, and the Court further, Finds, that Claimants’ action is not one for personal injuries and therefore Claimants were not required to file a notice of intent and the Court further, Finds, that the action is not barred by the fact that Howard L. Shelton received worker’s compensation benefits. See Doyle 0.Rhodes (1984)’ 101 Ill. 2d 1, 461 N.E.2d 382.
It is therefore ordered, that the motion to dismiss is denied.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RAUCCI, J. This matter coming before the Court upon stipulation for dismissal signed on Claimants’ behalf by their [*204]
I 204
attorney, Stephen J. Maasen, and signed on behalf of Respondent by Assistant Attorney General Phillip McQuillan, and the Court being fully advised in the premises therein, It is therefore ordered that Claimants’ cause of action in the above-styled matter is dismissed with prejudice to the Claimants and at the cost of the Claimants.