Statute of Repose Unambiguously Applies to Claims Brought Against Attorney Arising Out of Actions or Omissions in Performance of Professional Services
In Evanston Insurance Company v. George Riseborough, Kiferbaum Construction Corporation (“Kiferbaum”) was the general contractor for the construction of a warehouse. Two employees of the subcontractor on the project were injured at the construction site, resulting in a personal injury suit filed against Kiferbaum. Kiferbaum was represented in the personal injury lawsuit by the law firm of Jacobson and Riseborough. Kiferbaum was the named insured under primary and excess liability policies issued by Statewide Insurance. Kiferbaum was listed as an additional insured on each of its subcontractors’ insurance policies issued by Steadfast Insurance Company and Transportation Insurance Company. Statewide filed a declaratory judgment action where it sought declaration that it owed no coverage under its policies. The parties reached a settlement in the personal injury case. Evanston Insurance Company, Steadfast, and CNA Insurance Company (as owner of Transportation) entered into an agreement in which they agreed to contribute their respective policy limits to fund the settlement. George Riseborough signed the agreement as the “duly authorized agent and representative of Kiferbaum.” George Riseborough was later sued by the insurance company for signing a settlement agreement without authority.
The court reviewed Section 13-214.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which sets forth a six-year statute of repose for “actions for damages based on tort, contract, or otherwise…against an attorney arising out of an action or omission in the performance of professional services.”
The Circuit Court of Cook County found that the statute of repose barred plaintiff’s claims against the defendant attorneys and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the statute of repose did not apply to an action brought by a non-client of the defendant for a cause of action other than legal malpractice. 2011 IL App (1st) 102660-U, ¶ 28. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.
The Supreme Court held that under Illinois law, the statute unambiguously applies to all claims brought against an attorney arising out of actions or omissions in the performance of professional services.
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271 (Ill., 2014).
