(Photo via Wikipedia)
In an unpublished opinion in Barron v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 2020 IL App (1st) 182353-U, Nos. 1-18-23531-19-0656 cons., 2020 WL 7121448 (Ill. 4th DCA December 4, 2020), an Illinois appellate court upheld a trial court's orders dismissing the plaintiff's case and refusing to reconsider the ruling.
The plaintiff sued Great American over the conduct of the carrier's employees relative to the plaintiff's equine insurance policy. Ms. Barron boarded a horse, and received other equine services, at a stable. While the horse was at the stable, it suffered from multiple fractures of one of its legs and the horse was euthanized.
For some reason which does not specifically appear in the appellate opinion, and is perhaps vague in plaintiff's complaint, she allegedly gave the carrier confidential information.
The confidential information in question allegedly included her disclosure of the fact that the stable required nondisclosure agreements from its employees. Barron, 2020 WL 7121448, at *2, ¶ 10.
The plaintiff apparently gave the carrier this information before she sued the stable and the stable's owner. After that suit, she sued the carrier alleging breach of contract, bad faith due to improper claims handling prohibited by various Illinois statutes, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of an Illinois statute by virtue of the carrier's alleged disclosure of alleged confidential and privileged information, among other alleged causes of action.
As noted the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of these claims and also affirmed the trial court's refusal to reconsider. In a somewhat lengthy opinion that covers some 11 pages of the Westlaw report, the appellate court pointed out in basic and simple terms that the plaintiff's allegations and claims were not specific enough to withstand the carrier's motion to dismiss.
Specifically with regard to the claim alleged for breach of confidential and privileged information in violation of an Illinois statute, the appellate court point out that the statute in question does not apply to equine insurance which, again as noted, was the type of insurance involved in this case.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2020 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments