33 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boyd v. Travelers Insurancegreen2 sentences2015Instead, the court held that a spoliation claim can be stated under existing negligence principles. 6 Id. at 193-94 (“traditional remedies adequately address the problem” of destruction of evidence); see also Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., 2012 IL 113270, ¶ 26 (“spoliation of evidence is a form of negligence”). 1996I also agree with the majority’s holding that this cause be remanded to give Miller the opportunity to state a spoliation claim under Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188 (1995). | 4 | 12 |
Limer v. Lymangreen2 sentences2016Notably, however, a wrongful-death claim, like a spoliation claim, is derivative: “derivative of the action [the] decedent had in his lifetime.” Limer v. Lyman, 220 Ill. 2015Notably, however, a wrongful-death claim, like a spoliation claim, is derivative: “derivative of the action [the] decedent had in his lifetime.” Limer v. Lyman, 220 Ill. | 3 | 3 |
JACKSON BY JACKSON v. Michael Reese Hosp. and Medical Centergreen2 sentences2003App.3d 1 , 228 Ill.Dec. 333 , 689 N.E.2d 205 (1997), of a spoliation claim for loss of X rays allegedly needed to prove a malpractice claim stands in contrast to the reasoning in Jones and Stinnes Corp. In Jackson , the spoliation count of the complaint had been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 2003App.3d 1 , 228 Ill.Dec. 333 , 689 N.E.2d 205 (1997), of a spoliation claim for loss of X rays allegedly needed to prove a malpractice claim stands in contrast to the reasoning in Jones and Stinnes Corp. In Jackson , the spoliation count of the complaint had been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. | 2 | 6 |
Fremont Casualty Insurance v. Ace-Chicago Great Dane Corp.green2 sentences2011App.3d at 440 , 308 Ill.Dec. 991 , 862 N.E.2d 1194 ; see also Fremont Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ace-Chicago Great Dane Corp., 317 Ill.App.3d 67, 75 , 250 Ill.Dec. 624 , 739 N.E.2d 85 (2000) (An action for spoliation "is predicated upon the breach of a duty to preserve evidence and that the damage flowing therefrom is resulting inability to prove a cause of action in the absence of such evidence." (citing Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 166 Ill.2d 188, 195-96 , 209 Ill.Dec. 727 , 652 N.E.2d 267 (1995))). 2011App.3d at 440 , 308 Ill.Dec. 991 , 862 N.E.2d 1194 ; see also Fremont Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ace-Chicago Great Dane Corp., 317 Ill.App.3d 67, 75 , 250 Ill.Dec. 624 , 739 N.E.2d 85 (2000) (An action for spoliation "is predicated upon the breach of a duty to preserve evidence and that the damage flowing therefrom is resulting inability to prove a cause of action in the absence of such evidence." (citing Boyd v. Travelers Insurance Co., 166 Ill.2d 188, 195-96 , 209 Ill.Dec. 727 , 652 N.E.2d 267 (1995))). | 2 | 2 |
Travelers Insurance v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc.green2 sentences2011We do not agree with Universal's characterization of the allegations in the complaint. ¶ 24 The Gramacki complaint alleges that the Nissan Pathfinder "was discarded and destroyed" and that Farmers "ordered the destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder." Farmers' third-party complaint for contribution lodges the same allegations against LKQ, claiming that LKQ "negligently destroyed the Pathfinder without the knowledge or consent of Farmers." Our supreme court has explained that "to the average, ordinary person, tangible property suffers a `physical' injury when the property is altered in app 2011We do not agree with Universal's characterization of the allegations in the complaint. ¶ 24 The Gramacki complaint alleges that the Nissan Pathfinder "was discarded and destroyed" and that Farmers "ordered the destruction of the subject Nissan Pathfinder." Farmers' third-party complaint for contribution lodges the same allegations against LKQ, claiming that LKQ "negligently destroyed the Pathfinder without the knowledge or consent of Farmers." Our supreme court has explained that "to the average, ordinary person, tangible property suffers a `physical' injury when the property is altered in app | 2 | 2 |
Veazey v. LaSalle Telecommunications, Inc.green2 sentences2007The only case cited by Country Mutual which found that a spoliation claim could not succeed without an allegation that the. plaintiff was prevented from raising any claims or defense at all is Veazey v. LaSalle Telecommunications, Inc., 334 Ill. 2007The only case cited by Country Mutual which found that a spoliation claim could not succeed without an allegation that the plaintiff was prevented from raising any claims or defense at all is Veazey v. LaSalle Telecommunications, Inc., 334 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Andersen v. MacK Trucks, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Andersen, 341 Ill.App.3d at 217 , 276 Ill.Dec. 203 , 793 N.E.2d 962 . 2004See Andersen, 341 Ill.App.3d at 217 , 276 Ill.Dec. 203 , 793 N.E.2d 962 . | 2 | 2 |
Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc.green2 sentences2015Instead, the court held that a spoliation claim can be stated under existing negligence principles. 6 Id. at 193-94 (“traditional remedies adequately address the problem” of destruction of evidence); see also Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., 2012 IL 113270, ¶ 26 (“spoliation of evidence is a form of negligence”). 2013In order to set forth a sufficient claim of spoliation of evidence, plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts in support of the four elements of a spoliation claim: “(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to preserve the evidence; (2) the defendant breached that duty by losing or destroying the evidence; (3) the loss or destruction of the evidence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s inability to prove an underlying lawsuit; and (4) as a result, the plaintiff suffered actual damages.” Martin, 2012 IL 113270, ¶ 26 . ¶ 22 As a general rule in Illinois, there is no duty to preserve evide | 1 | 2 |
Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2011It is true that intangible losses and purely economic losses do not constitute "physical injury to tangible property" or "physical loss or damage." See, e.g., Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 278, 312 , 258 Ill.Dec. 792 , 757 N.E.2d 481 (2001) ("[U]nder its plain and ordinary meaning, the phrase `physical injury' does not include intangible damage to property, such as economic loss."); Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 337 Ill.App.3d 420, 427 , 271 Ill.Dec. 757 , 785 N.E.2d 951 (2003) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 786 F.2d 2011It is true that intangible losses and purely economic losses do not constitute "physical injury to tangible property" or "physical loss or damage." See, e.g., Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 278, 312 , 258 Ill.Dec. 792 , 757 N.E.2d 481 (2001) ("[U]nder its plain and ordinary meaning, the phrase `physical injury' does not include intangible damage to property, such as economic loss."); Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 337 Ill.App.3d 420, 427 , 271 Ill.Dec. 757 , 785 N.E.2d 951 (2003) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 786 F.2d | 1 | 2 |
Alm v. Loyola University Medical Centergreen1 sentence2024To the extent this is an issue concerning the denial of a motion in limine, we review for an abuse of discretion See Alm v. Loyola University Medical Center, 373 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Greenwich Insurance v. RPS Products, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Greenwich Insurance Co v. RPS Products, Inc., 379 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Brobbey v. ENTERPRISE LEASING OF CHICAGOgreen1 sentence2023Moreover, Oppenheim argues that A+W’s inability to establish any damages is fatal to the spoliation claim. ¶ 48 “Under Illinois law, spoliation of evidence is a form of negligence; proof of spoliation requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to preserve evidence, breached that duty, and thereby proximately caused the plaintiff to be unable to prove the underlying cause of action.” Brobbey v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago, 404 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
American Home Assurance Co. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., American Home Assurance Co. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co.green1 sentence2011It is true that intangible losses and purely economic losses do not constitute "physical injury to tangible property" or "physical loss or damage." See, e.g., Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill.2d 278, 312 , 258 Ill.Dec. 792 , 757 N.E.2d 481 (2001) ("[U]nder its plain and ordinary meaning, the phrase `physical injury' does not include intangible damage to property, such as economic loss."); Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 337 Ill.App.3d 420, 427 , 271 Ill.Dec. 757 , 785 N.E.2d 951 (2003) (quoting American Home Assurance Co. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 786 F.2d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dardeen v. Kuehling
green
2 sentences2010Boyd remains our supreme court’s “watershed pronouncement on spoliation of evidence.” Dardeen, 213 Ill. 2d at 335 , 821 N.E.2d at 231 . 2010Boyd remains our supreme court’s “watershed pronouncement on spoliation of evidence.” Dardeen, 213 Ill. 2d at 335 , 821 N.E.2d at 231 . | 4 | 2005–2010 |
Skridla v. General Motors Company
green
2 sentences2015We have alleviated this concern by suggesting that the limitations period for a spoliation claim begins to run not on the same day as that for the underlying claim, but on the day of the destruction of the evidence (or the day that the plaintiff -7- 2015 IL App (2d) 141168 discovers it), provided that the underlying claim itself was not time-barred on that day. 2015We have alleviated this concern by suggesting that the limitations period for a spoliation claim begins to run not on the same day as that for the underlying claim, but on the day of the destruction of the evidence (or the day that the plaintiff -7- 2015 IL App (2d) 141168 discovers it), provided that the underlying claim itself was not time-barred on that day. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o 2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o | 2 | 2011–2011 |
ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY v. Wright
green
2 sentences2011The court "reject[ed] that notion," concluding that "a cause of action does not qualify as tangible property" and that the policy therefore "does not cover the diminution in the value of appellant's products liability claim." Id. ¶ 29 Citing Essex as its only authority, Universal claims that because a spoliation claim seeks to recover damages to a cause of action, the damages sought in a spoliation claim are not "damages because of physical injury to tangible property." We find that Essex did not reach such a sweeping conclusion, and we reject Universal's attempt to stretch Essex beyond its ho 2011The court "reject[ed] that notion," concluding that "a cause of action does not qualify as tangible property" and that the policy therefore "does not cover the diminution in the value of appellant's products liability claim." Id. ¶ 29 Citing Essex as its only authority, Universal claims that because a spoliation claim seeks to recover damages to a cause of action, the damages sought in a spoliation claim are not "damages because of physical injury to tangible property." We find that Essex did not reach such a sweeping conclusion, and we reject Universal's attempt to stretch Essex beyond its ho | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Qualman v. Bruckmoser
green
2 sentences2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o 2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o | 2 | 2011–2011 |
United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Keeley & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011When the insured attempted to avoid the “care, custody, and control” exclusion by arguing that the property at issue in the spoliation claim was the “lawsuit of the employees and codefendants in the underlying action”–the same argument presented by the insured in Essex–the court concluded that “coverage does not apply because only injury to tangible property is included in the insuring agreement.” Id. at 1124 . 2011When the insured attempted to avoid the "care, custody, and control" exclusion by arguing that the property at issue in the spoliation claim was the "lawsuit of the employees and codefendants in the underlying action"the same argument presented by the insured in Essex the court concluded that "coverage does not apply because only injury to tangible property is included in the insuring agreement." Id. at 1124, 320 Ill.Dec. 767 , 887 N.E.2d 911 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o 2011The duty of defense depends on the nature of the claim and has nothing to do with the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Wisconsin Label Corp. v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶ 19 , 233 Wis.2d 314 , 607 N.W.2d 276 (reviewing principles of construction under Wisconsin law); Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc., 2008 WI 86, ¶ 36 , 311 Wis.2d 492 , 753 N.W.2d 448 (reciting the "longstanding rule that we must focus on the incident or injury that gives rise to the claim, not the plaintiff's theory of liability" (internal quotation marks o | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Bagnola v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories
green
2 sentences2011Bagnola, 333 Ill. 2011Bagnola, 333 Ill. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Omega Forensic Engineering, Inc. v. RLI Insurance
green
2 sentences2011The court therefore concluded that the spoliation claim was not one for “ ‘damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” under the language of the policy.’ ” Id. 2011The court therefore concluded that the spoliation claim was not one for "damages because of `bodily injury' or `property damage' under the language of the policy." Id. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Cammon v. West Suburban Hospital Medical Center
green
2 sentences2007While the court acknowledged that establishing damages in the spoliation claim required the plaintiff to prove the underlying medical negligence claim, it held that this connection did not transform the spoliation claim into one seeking recovery for "the breach of a medical standard of patient care." Cammon, 301 Ill.App.3d at 950 , 235 Ill.Dec. 158 , 704 N.E.2d 731 . 2007While the court acknowledged that establishing damages in the spoliation claim required the plaintiff to prove the underlying medical negligence claim, it held that this connection did not transform the spoliation claim into one seeking recovery for “the breach of a medical standard of patient care.” Cammon, 301 Ill. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Wofford v. Tracy
green
1 sentence2015Cammon is distinguishable to the extent that it attempts to reconcile a statute of repose, which is not at issue - 12 - 2015 IL App (2d) 141220 here, with a spoliation claim and is otherwise incorrect for failing to account for the fact that spoliation claims are not independent claims. 8 ¶ 36 Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ spoliation claims as time- barred. ¶ 37 D. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Fox v. Cohen
green
1 sentence1994App. 3d 744, 406 N.E.2d 178 .) It is also noteworthy that the spoliation claim in Rodgers, which was based on a statute, was not filed until after a jury found in favor of one of the defendants in the underlying action. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Rodgers v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Decatur
green
1 sentence1994Rodgers, 149 Ill. 2d at 306 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bondu v. Gurvich
green
1 sentence1986In Bondu v. Gurvich (Fla. App. 1984), 473 So. 2d 1307 , the plaintiff similarly alleged that her husband died during the course of a triple-bypass operation and that anesthesiology records had been made but were nowhere to be found, and that because there was no record of what occurred, summary judgment was entered against her in a medical malpractice wrongful-death claim. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.