Trial Court Retains Discretion to Dismiss an Action if another Action is Pending between the Same Parties for Same Cause
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. LeBeau, State Farm issued a policy to Roxanna LeBeau (“LeBeau”) for a 2001 Oldsmobile Intrigue that was titled and licensed in Illinois. While the policy was in effect, LeBeau was driving in Milwaukee, Wisconsin when she collided with an uninsured car driven by a Wisconsin resident. LeBeau demanded uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the policy, LeBeau for her injuries and her husband, Daneil Otterbacher (“Otterbacher”), for loss of consortium. LeBeau and Otterbacher, along with two insurance companies that had reimbursed LeBeau and her employer for certain expenses, filed a complaint against the driver and State Farm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action against LeBeau and Otterbacher in Illinois. The action was dismissed because there was another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.
State Farm continued by stating that the issues in the two cases were not the same. The Wisconsin suit involved a negligence claim against the driver, while State Farm’s complaint involved only whether defendants could recover UM benefits from State Farm. Responding to defendant’s contention that it had raised the policy’s limitations period as a defense in the Wisconsin case, State Farm argued that, in fact, it had requested the Wisconsin court bifurcate the proceedings and stay the claims against State Farm until the Illinois court had decided the coverage issue. Finally, State Farm maintained that dismissing its declaratory-judgment complaint because the Wisconsin court faced a similar issue did not make sense, since the Wisconsin court had itself deferred to the Illinois court’s prerogative to decide the coverage issue.
The court reviewed whether the Illinois cause of action was the same and wholly subsumed within the Wisconsin suit.
Under Illinois law, Section 2-619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a trial court to dismiss an action if there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (West 2012). Even if these requirements are met, the trial court retains discretion to grant the motion or to allow multiple actions to proceed. The factors to consider are comity; the prevention of multiplicity, vexation, and harassment; the likelihood of obtaining complete relief in the foreign jurisdiction; and the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment in the local forum. The court found that although State Farm’s complaint cannot be characterized as either vexatious or harassing, it does create a “multiplicity” of actions. Moreover, because the Wisconsin action incorporates the issue raised in the complaint, along with all of the other issues among the three parties (State Farm, defendant, and the driver), it appears likely that complete relief on State Farm’s complaint can be had in the foreign action.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Lebeau, 2014 IL App (2d) 131276.
