JAMES E. DAWSON, S R ., plenary guardian of the estate of James E. Dawson, Jr., a disabled person, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought recovery for personal injuries from a car accident. The court dismissed the claim because the $100,000 received from another party via a covenant not to sue set off the maximum possible recovery under the Court of Claims Act.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 37, par. 439.24-6
Cases cited: Estate of Anzalone v. State (1961), 24 Ill. Ct. Cl. 172; Williams v. State (1965), 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 249; Estate of Powers v. State (1972), 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 130
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- N EIL F. H ARTICAN, Attorney General (G LEN P. L ARNER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- P ERS O NAL 1Njut-w-recovery from other driver-set-off-claim dismissed. Claim for personal injuries arising from automobile accident was dismissed where Claimant had received $100,000 in exchange for covenant not to sue driver of other vehicle and Court of Claims has uniformly held that if amount received from other sources for same incident equaled or exceeded maximum available tort award, set-off provision of Court of Claims Act prevents recovery of any further amounts, regardless of Claimant’s damages.
This matter comes before the Court upon Respondent’s motion to dismiss filed March 7, 1983.
Claimant seeks recovery for personal injuries sustained by him as a result of a July 3, 1980, automobile accident involving two other cars on the Kennedy Expressway. There are some attachments to the complaint showing Claimant has already received $100,000 in ex[*875]
, change for a covenant not to sue the driver of one of the ~ other vehicles.
Respondent moves to dismiss this claim on the basis ~ of the set-off provision of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. ~ Rev. Stat. 1981, ch., 37, par. 439.24-6). It is asserted that the recovery of $100,000 from another party in return for a covenant not to sue completely sets off any possible recovery in this case, since the maximum award could be only $100,000.
,
This issue has arisen many times in the past, and the Court has uniformly held that if amounts received from other sources by a Claimant for the same incident are equal to, or exceed, the maximum tort award available here, the set-off provision prevents the recovery of any further amounts, regardless of whether or not Claimant’s damages exceed the statutory limit on recovery. (Estate of Anzalone v . State (1961),24 Ill. Ct. C1.172; Williamsv . State (1965), 25 Ill. Ct. C1. 249; Estate of Powers v . State (1972), 28 Ill. Ct. C1. 130.) There are no facts before us in the instant claim which provide any basis for a departure from, or reversal of, this line of decisions.
It is hereby ordered that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, granted, and this cause is dismissed.