common-fund doctrine in Illinois

2011The obligation to pay fees under the common fund doctrine, which is quasi-contractual, is independent of any insurance contract or subrogation agreement and is "resting instead upon equitable considerations of quantum meruit and the prevention of unjust enrichment." Id. at 390-91 , 219 Ill.Dec. 490 , 671 N.E.2d 657 ; see Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill.2d 119, 126 , 5 Ill.Dec. 572 , 361 N.E.2d 1100 (1977) *1087 (rejecting insurer's argument that application of the common fund doctrine would violate the subrogation contract between insurer and its insured); Stevens v. Country Mutual I

2011The obligation to pay fees under the common fund doctrine, which is quasi-contractual, is independent of any insurance contract or subrogation agreement and is "resting instead upon equitable considerations of quantum meruit and the prevention of unjust enrichment." Id. at 390-91 , 219 Ill.Dec. 490 , 671 N.E.2d 657 ; see Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill.2d 119, 126 , 5 Ill.Dec. 572 , 361 N.E.2d 1100 (1977) *1087 (rejecting insurer's argument that application of the common fund doctrine would violate the subrogation contract between insurer and its insured); Stevens v. Country Mutual I

2020Our supreme court adopted the common-fund doctrine in Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill. 2d 119 (1977).

2020Our supreme court adopted the common-fund doctrine in Baier v. State Farm Insurance Co., 66 Ill. 2d 119 (1977).

1999The common-fund doctrine "finds its source in the court's inherent equitable powers ***." Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B. , 168 Ill. 2d 235, 238 , 659 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1995).

1999The common-fund doctrine "finds its source in the court's inherent equitable powers ***." Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B. , 168 Ill. 2d 235, 238 , 659 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1995).

1999City of Chicago v. Korshak, 276 Ill.App.3d 597, 602 , 213 Ill.Dec. 144 , 658 N.E.2d 1165, 1169 (1995); Wolff v. Ampacet Corp., 284 Ill.App.3d 824, 828-29 , 220 Ill.Dec. 601 , 673 N.E.2d 745, 748 (1996).

1999City of Chicago v. Korshak, 276 Ill.App.3d 597, 602 , 213 Ill.Dec. 144 , 658 N.E.2d 1165, 1169 (1995); Wolff v. Ampacet Corp., 284 Ill.App.3d 824, 828-29 , 220 Ill.Dec. 601 , 673 N.E.2d 745, 748 (1996).

2020Thus, Kaiser asserts, any incidental benefit to an insurer invokes the common- fund doctrine. ¶ 36 In support of its incidental-benefit theory, Kaiser relies on the Fourth District’s decision in Stevens v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 387 Ill.

2020Put another way, courts do not decide whether the common-fund doctrine applies by brushing off the facts of the case. ¶ 44 In his dissent in Stevens, Justice Appleton succinctly grasped the reason that a setoff scenario cannot trigger the common-fund doctrine: “[T]he recoupment of the medical payments advanced by [Country] came from the reduction of its liability under the [UIM] coverage, not by way of reimbursement from any funds generated by plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts.” Stevens, 387 Ill.

2020Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman, 193 Ill. 2d 560, 572-73 (2000); Wajnberg, 2011 IL App (2d) 110190, ¶ 17 . ¶ 42 Further, in our view, the absence of the subrogation component alters the relationship between the insurer and its insured from one in which the insurer occupies the position of the insured to a kind of creditor-debtor relationship, which cannot form the basis for application of the common-fund doctrine.

2020Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman, 193 Ill. 2d 560, 572-73 (2000); Wajnberg, 2011 IL App (2d) 110190, ¶ 17 . ¶ 42 Further, in our view, the absence of the subrogation component alters the relationship between the insurer and its insured from one in which the insurer occupies the position of the insured to a kind of creditor-debtor relationship, which cannot form the basis for application of the - 15 - 2020 IL App (2d) 190411 common-fund doctrine.

2015Most applications have nothing to do with health insurance in general, or employer-sponsored plans in particular." Blackburn v. Sundstrand Corp., 115 F.3d 493, 495 (7th Cir. 1997).

1999The common-fund doctrine long predates not only ERISA but also employer-sponsored health plans.” Blackburn, 115 F.3d at 495 .

2020In Wendling, 242 Ill. 2d at 265 , our supreme court noted that courts have applied the common-fund doctrine in numerous types of civil cases, including “insurance subrogation claims.” The high court did not say “insurance claims.” The subrogation requirement comports with the purpose of the doctrine, which “permits a party who creates, preserves, or increases the value of a fund in which others have an ownership interest to be reimbursed from that fund for litigation expenses incurred, including counsel fees.” (Emphasis added.) Morris B.

2020See Wendling, 242 Ill. 2d at 265 (“Illinois courts have never applied the common-fund doctrine to a creditor-debtor relationship ***.”).

2010The hospitals argue, however, that pursuant to the supreme court’s decision in Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill. 2d 73, 75-76 (1979), the common-fund doctrine does not apply to hospital liens under the Act.

2010The hospitals argue, however, that pursuant to the supreme court's decision in Maynard v. Parker, 75 Ill. 2d 73, 75-76 (1979), the common-fund doctrine does not apply to hospital liens under the Act.

2001See Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese v. Thorpe, 318 Ill.

2001See Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago v. Thorpe, 318 Ill.App.3d 304, 311 , 251 Ill.

1999See In re Estate of Pfoertner , 298 Ill.

1999See In re Estate of Pfoertner, 298 Ill.

1999See Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B. , 168 Ill. 2d 235, 238 , 659 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1995); Jesser v. Mayfair Hotel, Inc. , 360 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Mo. 1962).

1999See Brundidge v. Glendale Federal Bank, F.S.B., 168 Ill. 2d 235, 238 , 659 N.E.2d 909, 911 (1995); Jesser v. Mayfair Hotel, Inc., 360 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Mo. 1962).

1999See Village of Clarendon Hills , 278 Ill.

1999See Village of Clarendon Hills, 278 Ill.

1999See Keene v. Wilson Refuse, Inc. , 788 S.W.2d 324, 327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

1999See Keene v. Wilson Refuse, Inc., 788 S.W2d 324, 327 (Mo. App. 1990).

2023Id. at 520 .

2001Taylor v. State Universities Retirement System, 203 Ill.

2010The circuit courts in the case at bar were aware of the Maynard decision and considered it, but they concluded that the supreme court had in a more recent case, Bishop v. Burgard, 198 Ill. 2d 495 (2002), expanded the common-fund doctrine to include a debtor/creditor relationship such as the one at bar.

2010The circuit courts in the case at bar were aware of the Maynard decision and considered it, but they concluded that the supreme court had in a more recent case, Bishop v. Burgard, 198 Ill. 2d 495 (2002), expanded the common-fund doctrine to include a debtor/creditor relationship such as the one at bar.

2008App. 3d 121, 124 , 470 N.E.2d 6, 9 (1984) (a plaintiff may not recover attorney fees under the common-fund doctrine while rendering services for an unwilling recipient).

2008See Tenney v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 128 Ill.App.3d 121, 124 , 83 Ill.Dec. 251 , 470 N.E.2d 6, 9 (1984) (a plaintiff may not recover attorney fees under the common-fund doctrine while rendering services for an unwilling recipient).

1999"Conflicts rules are applied only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome." Kramer v. Weedhopper of Utah, Inc., 204 Ill.App.3d 469, 474 , 149 Ill.Dec. 807 , 562 N.E.2d 271, 274 (1990).

1999"Conflicts rules are applied only when a difference in law will make a difference in the outcome." Kramer v. Weedhopper of Utah, Inc., 204 Ill.App.3d 469, 474 , 149 Ill.Dec. 807 , 562 N.E.2d 271, 274 (1990).

1999Before we examine count II's sufficiency under Illinois procedural law ( Velle Transcendental Research Ass'n v. Esquire, Inc., 41 Ill.App.3d 799, 803 , 354 N.E.2d 622, 626 (1976)), we must first determine which jurisdiction's substantive law controls this case.

1999Before we examine count II's sufficiency under Illinois procedural law ( Velle Transcendental Research Ass'n v. Esquire, Inc., 41 Ill.App.3d 799, 803 , 354 N.E.2d 622, 626 (1976)), we must first determine which jurisdiction's substantive law controls this case.

2015The Supreme Court described the common fund doctrine as having "deep roots in equity," as being "set in the soil of unjust enrichment: To allow 'others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff's efforts without contributing [***] to the litigation expenses *** would be to enrich the others unjustly at the plaintiff's expense.' " McCutchen, 569 U.S. at ___ , 133 S. Ct. at 1547 (quoting Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 392 (1970)).

1991Ed. 2d 593, 606 , 90 S. Ct. 616, 625 .) This common-fund doctrine allows a party who has conferred a benefit on another through litigation to recover a share of attorney fees from those who benefit.