The Illinois Guaranty Fund and Liability Under the Dramshop Act
In Rogers v. Imeri, Parents of driver fatally injured in collision with drunk driver brought action against bar owner and bar under the Dramshop Act. Rogers’s son, who was 18 years old, sustained fatal injuries when the vehicle he was driving was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by John E. Winterrowd. Rogers’s son died later the same day. According to the allegations of the complaint, Winterrowd was intoxicated after consuming alcohol served to him at Johnny’s Bar and Grill, owned by Gani Imeri. Rogers received $26,550 from Winterrowd’s liability insurance policy. They also received $80,000 from their own automobile insurance policy. Rogers subsequently filed an action under the Dramshop Act. They alleged that Winterrowd was intoxicated as a result of drinking alcoholic beverages at Johnny’s Bar and Grill and that his intoxication contributed to the collision. They sought damages for the loss of the decedent’s companionship, property damage to the vehicle, medical bills, and the decedent’s pain and suffering before he died.
Imeri’s dramshop liability insurance carrier was insolvent, so it was represented by the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund. At the time the accident occurred, the bar owner maintained a dramshop liability policy with Constitutional Casualty Company. The policy provided a policy limit of $130,338.51, the statutory cap under the Dramshop Act. However, while this matter was pending, Constitutional Casualty Company was declared insolvent and liquidated. Consequently, the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund took over the defense of this litigation. The bar owner argued that his maximum dramshop liability is $130,338.51, the statutory damage cap and that amount must therefore be reduced by the $106,550 received from other insurance companies under section 546 of the Illinois Insurance Code. The parties agreed that Imeri is entitled to a setoff of the $106,550 that Rogers received from the two automobile insurance policies. Imeri argued that this amount is to be deducted from the statutory cap of $130,338.51. Rogers argued that it must be deducted from the jury’s verdict and then reduced to the statutory cap, if necessary.
The Court notes that the Guaranty Fund is intended “to place claimants in the same position they would have been if the liability insurer had not become insolvent.” The Court determined that the Dramshop Act requires the following procedure where setoffs are involved: First, the jury determines the total damages sustained. The jury’s award is then offset by other recoveries. Finally, if the remainder is above the statutory limit, it is reduced to that limit.
Rogers v. Imeri, 985 N.E.2d 1062 (Ill.App. 5th Dist).
