Primary Jurisdiction: IWCC versus the Courts
After an employee was injured on the job while working for Ultimate Backyard, he filed a worker’s compensation claim with the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission (IWCC). Hastings Mutual initially agreed, under a reservation of policy, to provide temporary total disability and medical benefits, but later it withdrew its tentative acceptance and denied coverage. Hastings filed a declaratory judgment action against Ultimate Backyard and the employee that it had no duty to defend or indemnify and a motion to stay the IWCC proceeding, based on the fact that it properly informed Ultimate Hastings of the cancellation of the worker’s compensation coverage. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. The employee and the Attorney General’s Office went forward with the IWCC proceedings, but Hastings Mutual never appeared. The court denied Hastings Mutual’s motion as moot, since the IWCC had authority to decide the issue. Hastings filed another complaint adding the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), who did work for IWCC, as a defendant. All three defendants filed motions to dismiss. The trial court granted Ultimate Backyard’s and the employee’s motion to dismiss, because the IWCC had authority to decide the issues of fact. The trial court granted NCCI’s motion to dismiss because the complaint was premature. Hastings appealed the motions granted in favor of Ultimate Backyard and its employee and the denial of its motion to stay the proceedings in the IWCC.
The issue on appeal was whether the issue presented question of fact that the IWCC had authority to decide or questions of law that the court should decide. The court noted that both the court and the IWCC had concurrent jurisdiction. The court further noted that based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, a court should refer a matter to the appropriate administrative agency when that agency has a special expertise that would help resolve controversy, but that a court should rule on questions of law when it could foreclose needless litigation. The court held that resolving the issue at hand did not require the specialized expertise of the IWCC, because the interpretation of the statute is a question of law. The court reversed and remanded and directed the court to stay the IWCC proceeding.
Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Backyard, LLC, 2012 WL 426671, —N.E.2d —- (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2012), No. 1-10-3001.
