Court Dismissal of a Cause of Action after 18 Months without Action

In American Family Mutual Insurance v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC., Sidhus’ 2003 Mercedes Benz C240 caught fire in their garage located at 2502 Branch Road in Champaign, Illinois. The Mercedes was parked next to Sidhus’ 1999 Honda CR-V and their 2001 Audi TT Convertible. The fire destroyed all three cars and caused property damage to Sidhus’ house and garage. Sidhus’ insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance, paid Sidhus $215,054.93 for their damages and loss. On July 3, 2008, American Family Mutual Insurance filed a five-count complaint against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.,  seeking reimbursement from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. for the money it paid to Sidhus.  American Family alleged that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. was responsible for the fire the Sidhus’ Mercedes started. In September 2009, the court dismissed Counts I, II, III, and IV without prejudice. In August 2011, American Family filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was dismiss in February of 2012, pursuant to Sixth Judicial Circuit Rule 3.7(b). In  March 2012, American Family filed a Motion to Reconsider, which was denied.

The court addressed the question of whether Rule 3.7 mandates dismissal. The court stated Local Rule 3.7 provides that the trial court may summarily dismiss a cause of action which has sat on its docket for a period of 18 months without any action. Rule 3.7 further provides the cause of action shall not thereafter be redocketed without both good cause show and leave of court. In this case, American Family waited 23 months before filing an amended complaint in August, 2011. In February of 2012, the court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 3.7 based on the fact that more than 18 months had passed.  American Family neither offered an explanation for the 23-month delay, nor provided the court with good reason to allow the matter to proceed. American Family decided to sit on the matter.

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC., 2013 WL 175701 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.)). (This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1)).