Hack v. Multimedia Cablevision
Annotate this Case
SECOND DIVISION
April 14, 1998
No. 1-97-0159
BERNARD HACK and CARMEL HACK, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiffs, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
MULTIMEDIA CABLEVISION, INC., )
and JERRY LARKIN, )
)
Defendants )
-----------------------------------)
(Allstate Insurance Company, )
)
Plaintiff and Intervenor- )
Appellant, )
)
Bernard Hack, )
) Honorable
Defendant-in-Intervention and ) Ronald J. Banks,
Appellee). ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:
Intervenor Allstate Insurance Company appeals from the trial
court order granting it only a small portion of the amount it had
sought in its subrogation claim against plaintiff Bernard Hack. We
affirm.
Hack filed an action against Multimedia Cablevision, Inc.,and
Jerry Larkin seeking damages relating to an automobile collision
that took place on February 14, 1993. In the course of that
litigation, Hack represented in verified answers to interrogatories
that the medical expenses for which he sought recovery in the
lawsuit were causally related to the collision. Allstate made
payments totaling $32,415.61 to Hack s medical providers.
On December 3, 1996, the circuit court dismissed Hack s action
against Multimedia Cablevision, Inc.,and Jerry Larkin with
prejudice, pursuant to settlement. However, the circuit court
retained jurisdiction over the adjudication of medical liens. On
December 5, 1996, Hack filed a "Motion to Adjudicate Medical Payment
Lien," asking the court to adjudicate Allstate s lien to zero or, in
the alternative, to $2,773.25, less attorney fees. Hack claimed
that many of the medical payments that Allstate made were not in
fact related to the automobile accident. In support of this motion,
Hack relied of the deposition of his surgeon, Dr. Arthur Connor, who
stated that Hack s only medical expense that was, within a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, related to the accident was
the treatment plaintiff received for a cervical strain. Hack
therefore claims that he did not collect in settlement the medical
payments related to the bills for which Allstate made its own
payments. Hack claimed that Allstate's lien for subrogation
benefits cannot attach to a settlement that does not include
reimbursement for medical expenses paid by Allstate.
On December 13, 1996, Allstate filed a petition for
intervention, a response to Hack s motion to adjudicate the lien and
a motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of its full
contractual subrogation interest. Each of these pleadings asked the
court to endorse the full amount of Allstate s subrogation rights
and to award Allstate reimbursement of the $32,415.61 that it had
paid to Hack s medical providers. Allstate relied on the provision
of its insurance policy with Hack which provided that, "When we pay,
your rights of recovery from anyone else become ours up to the
amount we have paid. You must protect these rights and help us
enforce them."
The circuit court granted Allstate s petition to intervene but
denied Allstate s motion for summary judgment. The circuit court
entered judgment in favor of Allstate and against Hack in the amount
of $2,773.25, less attorney fees of one third. The circuit court
stated that it was only enforcing Allstate s lien for those payments
made by Allstate that related to the automobile accident. Allstate
appeals.
We agree with the trial court that Allstate is not entitled in
this subrogation action to the $32,415.61 that it paid to Hack's
medical providers. A trial court's jurisdiction to adjudicate
claims is limited to the matters raised in the pleadings. Sullivan
v. Sudiak, 30 Ill. App. 3d 899, 333 N.E.2d 60 (1975). Allstate's
complaint in intervention claims that it "is subrogated to the
rights of Bernard Hack in any settlement proceeds from defendants,
Larkin and Multimedia Cablevision, Inc." and "is entitled to
recoupment of all medical treatment expenses, less attorneys fees,
from any settlement proceeds." Thus, because Allstate only sought
subrogation out of the settlement, the circuit court was without
jurisdiction to adjudicate whether Allstate is entitled to
reimbursement of the medical expenses through any resources other
than the settlement. While Allstate may have a right to be
reimbursed for the payments it made to plaintiff's medical providers
under some other claim, the question here, however, is simply
whether Allstate can be reimbursed in this subrogation action from
plaintiff's settlement.
The right of an insurer to subrogation is measured by and
depends solely on the terms of the subrogation provisions in the
contract. Spirek v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 65
Ill. App. 3d 440, 382 N.E.2d 111 (1978). The contractual provision
in the Allstate insurance policy at issue here is contained in the
section entitled "Personal Medical Payments Coverage," and states,
"When we pay, your rights of recovery from anyone else becomes ours
up to the amount we have paid." Subrogation is defined as the
substitution of one individual in the place of a claimant to whose
rights he succeeds in relation to a debt which he has paid. State
Farm General Insurance Co. v. Stewart, 288 Ill. App. 3d 678, 681 N.E.2d 625 (1997). Therefore, Allstate's subrogation rights include
only the settlement amounts payable to Hack by the tort defendants,
Multimedia Cablevision and Larkin, for those medical expenses caused
by the accident. Allstate does not have a right to be reimbursed
for medical expenses for which Hack was not compensated in the
settlement.
The settlement Hack received from the tort defendants did not
state that a specific amount was designated for medical expenses.
However, the circuit court's determination that only $2,773.25 of
the settlement was for medical treatment Hack received for injuries
caused by the accident was a reasonable assessment in light of the
expert's testimony linking only those bills to the injuries caused
by the accident.
Allstate claims that Hack's representation in verified answers
to interrogatories that his medical expenses were causally related
to the automobile collision amounts to a judicial admission that
cannot be contradicted by adopting inconsistent evidence. A
judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement
about a concrete fact within a party's particular knowledge. Van's
Material Co. v. Department of Revenue, 131 Ill. 2d 196, 545 N.E.2d 695 (1989). While answers to interrogatories may be treated as
judicial admissions, this rule is inapplicable when the party's
statement is an estimate or opinion rather than one of concrete
fact. Brummet v. Farel, 217 Ill. App. 3d 264, 576 N.E.2d 1232
(1991). An injured party's statement regarding his physical
condition does not bind him as a judicial admission because a
physician is better suited to understand the actual nature of the
injuries. International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 169
Ill. App. 3d 809, 523 N.E.2d 1303 (1988). Hack's interrogatory
answer regarding the cause of his injuries is not a judicial
admission since the answer was not related to a fact within Hack's
particular knowledge. Rather, Hack's physician, Dr. Connor, was
better suited to present evidence regarding which medical expenses
were related to Hack's automobile accident. Thus, based on
Allstate s complaint in intervention, the terms of the insurance
contract, and the expert s testimony, Allstate is entitled in this
subrogation action to only the $2,773.25, less attorney fees.
Accordingly for the reasons set forth above, the trial court
order awarding Allstate $2,773.25, less attorney fees, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
COUSINS and TULLY, JJ., concur.
April 14, 1998
No. 1-97-0159
BERNARD HACK and CARMEL HACK, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiffs, ) Cook County.
)
v. )
)
MULTIMEDIA CABLEVISION, INC., )
and JERRY LARKIN, )
)
Defendants )
-----------------------------------)
(Allstate Insurance Company, )
)
Plaintiff and Intervenor- )
Appellant, )
)
Bernard Hack, )
) Honorable
Defendant-in-Intervention and ) Ronald J. Banks,
Appellee). ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court:
Intervenor Allstate Insurance Company appeals from the trial
court order granting it only a small portion of the amount it had
sought in its subrogation claim against plaintiff Bernard Hack. We
affirm.
Hack filed an action against Multimedia Cablevision, Inc.,and
Jerry Larkin seeking damages relating to an automobile collision
that took place on February 14, 1993. In the course of that
litigation, Hack represented in verified answers to interrogatories
that the medical expenses for which he sought recovery in the
lawsuit were causally related to the collision. Allstate made
payments totaling $32,415.61 to Hack s medical providers.
On December 3, 1996, the circuit court dismissed Hack s action
against Multimedia Cablevision, Inc.,and Jerry Larkin with
prejudice, pursuant to settlement. However, the circuit court
retained jurisdiction over the adjudication of medical liens. On
December 5, 1996, Hack filed a "Motion to Adjudicate Medical Payment
Lien," asking the court to adjudicate Allstate s lien to zero or, in
the alternative, to $2,773.25, less attorney fees. Hack claimed
that many of the medical payments that Allstate made were not in
fact related to the automobile accident. In support of this motion,
Hack relied of the deposition of his surgeon, Dr. Arthur Connor, who
stated that Hack s only medical expense that was, within a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, related to the accident was
the treatment plaintiff received for a cervical strain. Hack
therefore claims that he did not collect in settlement the medical
payments related to the bills for which Allstate made its own
payments. Hack claimed that Allstate's lien for subrogation
benefits cannot attach to a settlement that does not include
reimbursement for medical expenses paid by Allstate.
On December 13, 1996, Allstate filed a petition for
intervention, a response to Hack s motion to adjudicate the lien and
a motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of its full
contractual subrogation interest. Each of these pleadings asked the
court to endorse the full amount of Allstate s subrogation rights
and to award Allstate reimbursement of the $32,415.61 that it had
paid to Hack s medical providers. Allstate relied on the provision
of its insurance policy with Hack which provided that, "When we pay,
your rights of recovery from anyone else become ours up to the
amount we have paid. You must protect these rights and help us
enforce them."
The circuit court granted Allstate s petition to intervene but
denied Allstate s motion for summary judgment. The circuit court
entered judgment in favor of Allstate and against Hack in the amount
of $2,773.25, less attorney fees of one third. The circuit court
stated that it was only enforcing Allstate s lien for those payments
made by Allstate that related to the automobile accident. Allstate
appeals.
We agree with the trial court that Allstate is not entitled in
this subrogation action to the $32,415.61 that it paid to Hack's
medical providers. A trial court's jurisdiction to adjudicate
claims is limited to the matters raised in the pleadings. Sullivan
v. Sudiak, 30 Ill. App. 3d 899, 333 N.E.2d 60 (1975). Allstate's
complaint in intervention claims that it "is subrogated to the
rights of Bernard Hack in any settlement proceeds from defendants,
Larkin and Multimedia Cablevision, Inc." and "is entitled to
recoupment of all medical treatment expenses, less attorneys fees,
from any settlement proceeds." Thus, because Allstate only sought
subrogation out of the settlement, the circuit court was without
jurisdiction to adjudicate whether Allstate is entitled to
reimbursement of the medical expenses through any resources other
than the settlement. While Allstate may have a right to be
reimbursed for the payments it made to plaintiff's medical providers
under some other claim, the question here, however, is simply
whether Allstate can be reimbursed in this subrogation action from
plaintiff's settlement.
The right of an insurer to subrogation is measured by and
depends solely on the terms of the subrogation provisions in the
contract. Spirek v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 65
Ill. App. 3d 440, 382 N.E.2d 111 (1978). The contractual provision
in the Allstate insurance policy at issue here is contained in the
section entitled "Personal Medical Payments Coverage," and states,
"When we pay, your rights of recovery from anyone else becomes ours
up to the amount we have paid." Subrogation is defined as the
substitution of one individual in the place of a claimant to whose
rights he succeeds in relation to a debt which he has paid. State
Farm General Insurance Co. v. Stewart, 288 Ill. App. 3d 678, 681 N.E.2d 625 (1997). Therefore, Allstate's subrogation rights include
only the settlement amounts payable to Hack by the tort defendants,
Multimedia Cablevision and Larkin, for those medical expenses caused
by the accident. Allstate does not have a right to be reimbursed
for medical expenses for which Hack was not compensated in the
settlement.
The settlement Hack received from the tort defendants did not
state that a specific amount was designated for medical expenses.
However, the circuit court's determination that only $2,773.25 of
the settlement was for medical treatment Hack received for injuries
caused by the accident was a reasonable assessment in light of the
expert's testimony linking only those bills to the injuries caused
by the accident.
Allstate claims that Hack's representation in verified answers
to interrogatories that his medical expenses were causally related
to the automobile collision amounts to a judicial admission that
cannot be contradicted by adopting inconsistent evidence. A
judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement
about a concrete fact within a party's particular knowledge. Van's
Material Co. v. Department of Revenue, 131 Ill. 2d 196, 545 N.E.2d 695 (1989). While answers to interrogatories may be treated as
judicial admissions, this rule is inapplicable when the party's
statement is an estimate or opinion rather than one of concrete
fact. Brummet v. Farel, 217 Ill. App. 3d 264, 576 N.E.2d 1232
(1991). An injured party's statement regarding his physical
condition does not bind him as a judicial admission because a
physician is better suited to understand the actual nature of the
injuries. International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 169
Ill. App. 3d 809, 523 N.E.2d 1303 (1988). Hack's interrogatory
answer regarding the cause of his injuries is not a judicial
admission since the answer was not related to a fact within Hack's
particular knowledge. Rather, Hack's physician, Dr. Connor, was
better suited to present evidence regarding which medical expenses
were related to Hack's automobile accident. Thus, based on
Allstate s complaint in intervention, the terms of the insurance
contract, and the expert s testimony, Allstate is entitled in this
subrogation action to only the $2,773.25, less attorney fees.
Accordingly for the reasons set forth above, the trial court
order awarding Allstate $2,773.25, less attorney fees, is affirmed.
Affirmed.
COUSINS and TULLY, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
