GLENN LOANE, Claimant v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent
Case summary
Claimant sought $45,000 for an allegedly winning Wheel of Fortune lottery ticket. The court dismissed the claim because the game rules provided that the sole remedy for a disputed ticket was replacement with an unplayed ticket, and the rules were clear and unambiguous.
Cases cited: Dunteman v. State of Illinois, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 33 (1999); Michigan Avenue Management, Inc. v. State of Illinois, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 212 (1994)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Contracts - Claimant’s claim seeking lottery award for Wheel of Fortune Game ticket in dispute was denied where game rules specifically mandate that the only available remedy for a disputed claim is the replacement of the disputed ticket with an unplayed ticket.
- Contracts - Absent ambiguity, the plain language of the contractual terms control and the Court of Claims cannot go beyond the plain language of the contractual instrument.
ORDER
STORINO, J. This matter coming before the Court to be heard on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, the matter having been briefed by the parties, and the Court being fully advised in the premises; the Court finds: Claimant filed the above captioned Complaint on November 14, 2003 alleging that the Respondent owes Claimant $45,000 as a result of presenting what he believes to be a winning lottery ticket in the Wheel of Fortune game.
Claimant’s claim was denied by the Lottery Claims Department on January 10, 2003 because the ticket he presented was not a winning ticket and he was given a $3 Crossword ticket pursuant to the Game Rules. (See Claimant’s Complaint, Exhibit C).
Accordingly the to the Wheel of Fortune Game Rules, In the event a dispute between the Lottery and the ticket bearer occurs as to whether the ticket is a winning ticket, and the ticket prize is not paid, the Director may, solely at his/her [*326] option, replace the disputed ticket with an unplayed ticket (or tickets of equivalent sale price from another current Lottery game). This shall be the sole exclusive remedy of the bearer of the ticket in the event of such disputes. (See Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit A, Departmental Report, Illinois Lottery Office of the Director Games Rules: “Wheel Of Fortune” - Instant Game No. 187, page J03-J07; see also Claimant’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, ¶3).
By purchasing the Wheel of Fortune game ticket, Claimant agreed to the contractual terms of the Game Rules. These Game Rules state that in the event of a dispute, the only available remedy is the replacement of the disputed ticket with an unplayed ticket. The Game Rules further state that this shall be the sole exclusive remedy in the event of a dispute. This Court finds that the terms of the Game Rules are clear and unambiguous. Absent ambiguity, the plain language of the contractual terms control and the Court of Claims cannot go beyond the plain language of the contractual instrument. See Dunteman v.
State of Illinois, 52 Ill.Ct.Cl. 33 (1999); Michigan Avenue Management, Inc. v.
State of Illinois, 47 Ill.Ct.Cl. 212 (1994). As Claimant agreed to the terms of the Game Rules, and said Rules are clear and unambiguous, the terms of the Rules control and there is no other remedy that Claimant may request from this Court for his disputed ticket.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Claimant’s Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.