Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Carolyn Leslie v. Illinois Teachers' Retirement System

53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 243 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 2000-10-31 No. 00-CC-3947
Disposition: (No. 00-CC-3947-Claim dismissed.) Agency: Illinois Teachers' Retirement System
Cite as: Carolyn Leslie v. Illinois Teachers' Retirement System, 53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 243 (2000)
General Court of Claims 53 dismissed 2000s Carolyn Leslie v. Illinois Teachers' Retirement System 53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 243 2000-10-31 (No. 00-CC-3947-Claim dismissed.) /opinions/v53-p0431-1/

CAROLYN LESLIE, Claimant, v. ILLINOIS TEACHER’SRETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant alleged she was injured by falling ice and snow on a sidewalk in front of a hotel owned by the respondent. The court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Teachers' Retirement System, in its capacity as a fiduciary of a pension fund, is not a state agency and thus not subject to the Court of Claims Act.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/8; 705 ILCS 505/22-1

Cases cited: Board of Directors of 345 Fullerton Parkway Condominium Ass'n. v. Teachers Retirement System (1998), 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 396

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

Headnotes

  1. JURISDICTION-slip and fall claim against teachers pension fund dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In a personal injury action alleging that the Claimant was injured by slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk owned by the State Teachers Retirement System, the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction since the TRS, in its capacity as trustee of an employee pension fund, is not a State agency, and a suit against the TRS pension fund is not a suit against the State over which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction.
  2. 244 53 Ill. Ct. Cl.

ORDER

EPSTEIN, J.

This personal injury complaint alleges that the Claimant Carolyn Leslie was injured by falling ice and snow on the sidewalk in front of the Holiday Inn Hotel at 300 East Ohio Street in Chicago. Claimant alleges that the Holiday Inn Hotel was owned and operated by the Respondent Teachers Retirement System of the State of Illinois (the “TRS”), and that the TRS as owner was negligent.

This claim is before the Court on the motion of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Respondent, to dismiss this claim with prejudice for failure to file the required notice of intent with the clerk of this Court and the office of the Attorney General within one year from the date the alleged injury was received or the cause of action accrued, unless the complaint itself is filed within one year, as required by section 22-1 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22-1), which this claim was not.

The Court need not and does not reach the issue of the statutory bar urged by the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, because this claim must be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

This personal injury claim seeks redress from the State for a liability of the TRS in its capacity as an owner of property. In the absence of any contrary allegations in the complaint, the Court presumes that TRS ownership of property is necessarily in its capacity as trustee of the TRS pension fund, which owns the property in this case, but which is not a State fund. The TRS in its capacity as fiduciary of an employee pension fund is not a State agency, and a suit against the TRS pension fund is not a [*245]

Local Union No. 525 v. Bd. of Governors of SIU 245 suit against the State, over which this Court has jurisdiction under section 8 of the Court of Claims Act. (705 ILCS 505/8.) Board of Directors of 345 Fullerton Parkway Condominium Ass’n. v. Teachers Retirement System (1998), 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 396.

Wherefore, this claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with prejudice.

Official volume 53 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 2001 – July 1, 2000–June 30, 2001)  ·  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.