The URL can be used to link to this page

Claim# 127455 HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 �l ,LE \`( _�}p•;---�.�� FRANCIS H. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 ��. 1iVJJ+'=� PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E—MAIL: MAIL@HARTIGANLAW.COMJL 6 e YVONNE M. KATOU CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAULA. FARAHVAR July 8, 2002 �q; faf�� 0"F i GINGER R. WILEY 3 � i�(� IL :fieR A T! LEGAL ASSISTANT ON STEWART C. HORTON Mr. Victor De La Cruz Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. De La Cruz: As you know, on June 25, 2002 you extended me up to Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars authority with which to settle the case. On June 25, 2002 this matter was scheduled for hearing on our motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. We had a number of arguments, among them was whether this action should be barred by the Statute of Limitations orwhether Illinois' Discovery Rule granted the plaintiff additional time within which to file his complaint. I am confident that that was a matter of first impression and I would have been interested in finding out how the judge ruled. In any event, just before stepping up to see the judge, we were able to settle the case in the amount of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars. I have forwarded a Release to the plaintiff's counsel and would suggest the check be made payable to: James R. Stange and Patrick Sherlock, his attorney. His social security number is 337-68-5647. He is the son-in-law of Ed Joyce, who is another attorney who appeared on the case. The check can be made payable solely to the above. Once we receive the final paperwork we will provide you with the original and close out our file. Mr. Victor De La Cruz July 8, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HART AN & I NIER P C. PHO:jIo atrick H. O'C no cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW �MQ Bio VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK g0F 00na1-1 Village Board Transmittal Memorandum , CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION DATE: June 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Stange, et al v. Village of Oak Brook and Savino 00 L 004524 FROM: .Richard A. Martens,Village Attorney I am pleased to report that the above case was settled today. Although Mr. Stange and his attorney wanted more, 1RMA stood firm at a $10,000 settlement, which the plaintiff reluctantly accepted. The settlement did not include an apology or any admission of wrongdoing by any defendant. cc: Stephen B. Veitch, Village Manager HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN FRANCIS P. CUISINIER (312) 201-8880 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR FAX (312) 201-8905 t4 0 9 2002 E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV May 8, 2002 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, L PAUL A. AR ADMINISTRATION GINGER R.. WI WILELEY LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60523 RE: James R. Stange vs. Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. Martens: The Plaintiff, over my objection, was granted Leave to File his Amended Complaint. I have filed another Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and we have a Hearing scheduled for that Motion on June 25, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. We still feel that the Plaintiff's Complaint alleging defamation was filed untimely, in that, the statements made during a Village Board meeting are absolutely privileged. I have also forwarded to Plaintiff's Counsel a copy of the tape of the Village meeting and requested that he admit the authenticity of that tape. Once he does so, I will submit the tape to the Court in further support of our Motion. If you would like a copy of the most recent Motion I filed, I would be happy to forward the same to you. In the meantime, if you should have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HA & C I R P.C. rick ick on cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee Mr. Victor De La Cruz, IRMA HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 "iv, /7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR APR 2, E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO VILLAGE OF '.. l.:.. CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR April 26, 2002 GINGER R. WILEY LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Mr. Victor De La Cruz Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. De La Cruz: On April 24, 2002 1 appeared before the Honorable Judge Diane Larsen on the plaintiff's motion to file his Second Amended Complaint. I objected, however, the judge, as I predicted that she would, allowed plaintiff to file his Second Amended Complaint and gave me 14 days to file another motion to dismiss. We have received a hearing date on our motion to dismiss of June 25, 2002. You will recall that we asserted several defenses on our last motion which was really the first substantive motion we have filed in this case. The previous motions had dealt with issues of venue and Judge Larsen found that venue was properly in Cook County. I argued, however, that the plaintiff's Complaint was untimely pursuant to the one year statute and that statements made during a board meeting were absolutely privileged. We intend to raise the same arguments again. As I indicated previously, I believe that plaintiff is anxious to get the case resolved if you are interested in putting slightly more money on the table. As I also previously indicated, this is a case that has little value, in my opinion, as I believe that the plaintiff will have a difficult time getting Governor George Ryan Mr. Victor De La Cruz April 26, 2002 Page 2 to testify, even after he has left office, as he would leave himself open to answering a number of questions about subjects he would rather not delve into. If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HARTIGAN & CUISINIE P.C. rick H. O'Connor -- PHO:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR April 19, 2002 GINGER R. WILEY LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Mr. Victor De La Cruz Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. De La Cruz: With regard to the above captioned matter, the plaintiff had until March 25, 2002 to file his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's counsel failed to do so, but he has noticed up a motion for April 24, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. for leave to do so. Normally, those motions would be granted as a routine matter. I will object, for the record, but we don't anticipate that Judge Larson will deny plaintiff leave. As you know, we have asserted a number of defenses, including the Statute of Limitations and Privilege. The plaintiff's counsel would still like to settle this case, but, in the meantime, he has requested certain documents, including the agenda from the meeting in question on April 13, 1999. We previously offered Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars, that was rejected. The plaintiff is sticking to his bottom line of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars. I do believe, however, that putting aside issues of punitive damages, for which neither the Village nor IRMA can pay, the case has a low verdict potential in any event. Moreover,we feel that the case will be difficult for the plaintiff to prove because he will have to establish that George Ryan actually signed the correspondence in question. If he did so, he will Mr. Victor De La Cruz April 19, 2002 Page 2 prevail on the case. Defamation per se would not recognize a good faith defense. If the statements made were false and they were published to third persons, the defendants lose. Up to this point, I have argued that the venue was not proper in Cook County. The judge,- after several briefs and arguments, ultimately denied that motion allowing it to remain in Cook County. I then moved to dismiss the case on the basis that it was filed beyond the Statute of Limitations, and all statements made were privileged. The judge granted this motion, but allowed the plaintiff time to replead. I will advise you and provide you with a copy of the Amended Complaint, upon receipt. The plaintiff's counsel has requested a list of the Trustees and employees in attendance on April 13, 1999. Obviously, he has to establish that the defamation was "published". He apparently intends to question all the Trustees and employees in attendance on that evening as to what they heard. As you know, we have a videotape that reflects that and I am requesting that he admit the authenticity of that tape, which may obviate the need for these numerous depositions. If you are interested in entering into settlement negotiations, however,this may be the time to do so. I have already advised plaintiff's counsel that I intend to bring another motion to dismiss. If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, 7H. C I INIE P. onnor PHO:jlo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO U-0 CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR February 25, 2002 GINGER R. WILEY FEB 2 6 2002 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, IL. Mr. Victor De La Cruz ADMINISTRATION Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. De La Cruz: On February 25, 2002 we appeared before Judge Larsen on our motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. The judge granted our motion, but allowed the plaintiff 28 days to file yet another amended complaint, until March 25, 2002. We will have 28 days thereafter until April 22, 2002,to answer or otherwise plead and the matter is set for status on May 30, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. We are disappointed that the judge did not grant our motion outright, but she is giving the plaintiff every opportunity to cure the defects in the complaint. However, I believe that there are several fatal defects in the plaintiff's complaint and I pointed out two of them to the court. The first is that, in my opinion, the plaintiff is time barred by the Statute of Limitations because the complaint was filed more than one year from the date of the alleged defamation. Plaintiff cites the well known discovery rule which, in Illinois, allows the plaintiff one year from the date that he knew or should have known of the alleged defamation. I argue that the discovery rule applies only in circumstances in which the defamation is published in a manner likely to be concealed from the plaintiff. That was not Mr. Victor De La Cruz February 25, 2002 Page 2 the case here. Additionally, I argued that the statements made during the village meeting are absolutely privileged under Illinois law. Plaintiff counters that these statements were made before the official start of village business and, therefore, do not fall within the privilege. It is my contention that roll call had already been taken and the meeting commenced. I plan to provide the court with a videotape of the meeting in conjunction with our next motion to dismiss. Although the case has been pending since the year 2000, it is important to note that the motion heard on February 25, 2002 is actually the first motion that dealt with substantive issues. I had two previous motions to transfer the case to DuPage County. If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HARTIG I NI R P G.-- s Patrick H. O'Co PHO:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER PATRICK H. O'CONNOR FAX (312) 201-8905 E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR February 4, 2002 GINGER R. WILEY LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: This matter was scheduled for hearing before Judge Larsen for February 5 ri However,on February4,20021 heard from Plaintiff's counsel who indicated he as nOtrial and that his partner was out of town. The Judge, therefore, put this matter over for hearing until February 25, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. The deposition of the Plaintiff which had previously been scheduled has been continued until after the ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff's attorney, in response to a Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollar offer from us, indicated that his client would accept his previous bottom line settlement demand of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars. His official demand is Seventy Thousand ($70,000.00) Dollars. It appears that the Village of Oak Brook will be dismissed as a Defendant, based upon the I Plaintiff's response. As you know, we also moved to dismiss the entire case bas d u on both limitations and privilege. P We will keep you apprised of developments. A Ms. Danielle G. Brassea February 4, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours HART AN & C PHO:jIo Pa rick H. O'Con or cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET- SUITE 1800 / f CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 / RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 �(:,✓_ uA! /" �f �..,� FRANCIS P. CUISINIERJ y FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR s E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO /( t CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR January 24, 2002 _ GINGER R. WILEY i LEGAL ASSISTANT I 1 7 STEWART C. HORTON l Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY L One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 ice,' Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: I recently filed our Reply brief with regard he above captioned iter. have a hearing on our motion to dismiss schedu d for February 5, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. efore Judge Larsen. You will recall that on two previous.occasions I filed motions to iss/to transfer venue on the basis that the alleged defamation, if any,took"p ace in have County and that is the location of the defendant Village of Oak Brook. Plaintiff, in his Response brief, agreed to drop the claims against the Village of Oak Brook and proceed solely against Mr. Savino, however, we feel this is an attempt by him to circumvent the immunities granted pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act, as well as the common law. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea January 24, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HAS UIS IER P.C. (� atrick H. O'Connor PHO:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTOR N EYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. r _@, 1:� t �� i I ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602AN RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET. YVONNE M. KATO CECI RANCO PAUL O L. AHVAR IV January 24, 2002 ' PAUL A. FARAHVAR GINGER R. WILEY LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON \ Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: �� I recently filed our Reply brief with regard to the above captioned matter. We have a hearing on our motion to dismiss scheduled for February 5, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. before Judge Larsen. You will recall that on two previous occasions I filed motions to dismiss/to transfer venue on the basis that the alleged defamation, if any, took place in DuPage County and that is the location of the defendant Village of Oak Brook. Plaintiff, in his Response brief, agreed to drop the claims against the Village of Oak Brook and proceed solely against Mr. Savino, however, we feel this is an attemptx Oy him to circumvent the immunities granted pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act, as well as the common law. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea January 24, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, .HARTIGAN ISI Patrick H. O'Connor PHO:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER PATRICK H. O'CONNOR FAX (312) 201-8905 E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDN ET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV PAUL A. FARAHVAR November 27, 2001 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised this will acknowledge that I received authority up to Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars with which to settle this case. I have extended that offer to the Plaintiff and he has not formally responded. In the meantime, I filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Section 2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure based upon, among other things, that actions for slander and libel must be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of action accrued. The Complaint alleges defamatory statements being uttered Defendant Savino on April 13, 1999 and that Plaintiff learned of the defamation on April 27, 1999. It is undisputed that he filed his original Complaint on April 20, 2000, more than a year after the statements were uttered yet less than a year from when Stange purported learned of the defamation. However, it is our contention that although, under the Discovery Rule,the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until the Plaintiff discovers the alleged defamation, that applies only when the defamatory material is "published" in a manner likely to be concealed from the Plaintiff such as in a credit report or other confidential memorandum. It is expected that the Plaintiff will argue that, under the Discovery Rule, he has one (1) year from the date he first learned of the defamation. As such, it would be a question of fact whether he knew of the defamation priorto the time listed in his Complaint. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea November 27, 2001 Page 2 Unfortunately, Plaintiff would undoubtedly testify that he had no knowledge that the defamatory statements were uttered until he heard it on the re-broadcast. Furthermore, pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act, Section 2-107, the Village of Oak Brook cannot be held liable for the allegedly libelous or slanderous statements of a Trustee. See generally, Roberts v. Board of Education, 25 F.Supp.2d 866 (N.D. III. 1998). Finally, I indicate that statements made during the Board meeting are absolutely privileged because they are made during legislative proceedings. The hearing is schedule on our Motion for February 5, 2002. If you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, 7sRTGAN & CUISIN ER P.C. Harte n RWH:jlo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW r HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV October 11, 2001 PAUL A. FARAHVAR LEGAL ASSISTANT fj�f �.l'J1i STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: On October 10, 2001 1 appeared before the Honorable Judge Diane Larsen on our motion to transfer venue of this matter pursuant to 2-103 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. It was our contention that since the defamation arose, and the parties reside in DuPage County, that is the only appropriate county in which this action can be brought. Plaintiff's counsel countered that one of the elements of defamation is publication to third persons. He indicated that by virtue of the broadcast waves across county lines, publication took place in Cook County and part of the action,therefore, arose in Cook County which makes Cook County an appropriate venue. I argued that there is no case law on point in the State of Illinois regarding that issue. The judge agreed stating that this was a matter of first impression in this state. However, she also stated that she would deny that portion of the motion because she felt that broadcast waves received in Cook County would mean that part of the action arose in Cook County. With regard to our forum non conveniens motion, which is an alternative motion brought not because venue is inappropriate but on the basis that there is a more convenient courthouse, that motion was likewise denied. We argued that both the parties reside in DuPage County and most of the witnesses reside there as well. Plaintiff's counsel countered that some of the damage witnesses will be from Cook County and that George Ms. Danielle G. Brassea October 11, 2001 Page 2 Ryan, perhaps the most significant witness in the case, is a resident of Sangamon County. Therefore, given the proximity of DuPage County to Cook County, Judge Larsen cannot say that Cook County was a substantially inappropriate forum which is what she felt was the standard that would have to be met. I have been given 14 days within which to file my responsive pleading. I would anticipate that there would be an additional motion to bar at least certain portions of the plaintiff's complaint. However, before we reach that issue, I should point out that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 306, a party may petition for leave to appeal to the Appellate Court from an order of the Circuit Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule: 306(a)(2) from an order of the Circuit Court allowing or denying a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens, or from an order of the Circuit Court allowing or denying a motion to transfer a case to another county within this state on such grounds; 306(a)(4) from an order of the Circuit Court granting or denying a motion for a transfer of venue based on the assertion that the defendant is not a resident of the county in which the action was commenced, and no other legitimate basis for venue in that county has been offered by the plaintiff. The petition would contain a statement of facts of the case, the supporting record and the grounds for the appeal should be filed in the Appellate Court within 30 days after the entry of the order. We will diary that date and, if you wish for us to file a petition to appeal the denial of our motions, please advise. Otherwise, our objections to venue will, for all practical purposes, be waived. As you know, under the rules, a motion to transfer venue must be brought as our initial pleading and must be brought within the time to file an answer. Otherwise, all objections regarding venue would have been waived. While the motion was ultimately denied we were not prepared to waive our objections to venue at that point and we, therefore, have not gotten into the substantive aspects of the complaint. We also believe that at least some of the complaint was not timely filed. Actions for slander and libel must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. And although Illinois' discovery rule provides that an action for defamation does not begin until the plaintiff discovers the alleged defamation, we believe that the discovery rule does not apply unless the defamatory material is "published" in a manner likely to be concealed from the plaintiff. Such was not the case here. The plaintiff's original complaint was filed on April 20, 2000. The statements were made on April 13, 1999 and he allegedly learned of the defamation on April 27, 1999. It would be my position that although this campaign was apparently over,that a candidate for public office is a public figure and, therefore, statements of criminal wrongdoing would be privileged. There is some case law that suggests a former candidate may lose his public figure status, based upon the New Jersey case of Sisler v. Courier-News Company, 489 A.2d 704, 199 N.J.Super. 307, reversed on other grounds, 516 A.2d 1083, 104 N.J. 256. There is also case law that communication regarding a public official, in order to be privileged, must relate to his official conduct or his fitness for office. It has been held that HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Danielle G. Brassea October 11, 2001 Page 3 a charge of criminal conduct is always relevant to fitness for office. Therefore, one of the major questions is going to be whether or not this was related to a candidate's fitness for public office. It would be somewhat a stretch of an argument to say that a candidate after the election could be defamed with immunity. We will have to explore the case law regarding the issue of whether a former candidate loses his public figure status for the holding that a charge of criminal conduct against a candidate is privileged, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court in Ocala Star Banner Company v. Damron Florida, 91 S.Ct. 628, 401 U.S. 295. There also could be an interesting issue that arises regarding the Uniform Single Publication Act which prohibits more than one cause of action forthe same means of publication no matter how many times that publication is reproduced. We would argue that we were not responsible for the republication, that would be the Cable company's responsibility. It would be our argument that we had no control over the Cable company's broadcast or rebroadcast of any previously aired statements. Consequently, we do not feel we should be responsible for that publication. The judge may well determine that some of these issues are best left for a motion for summary judgment. Some, however, I feel are appropriately addressed now. For example, I believe that the issue regarding whether or not Mr. Stange will be a public figure for the purposes of this case will undoubtedly be a question of fact based upon his testimony and answers to Interrogatories. However, I believe that the issue regarding Statute of Limitations can be brought as a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's argument will undoubtedly be that, since he did not discover the defamation until April 27, 1999, that is 7 the effective date of the defamation. That argument raises an interesting question with its V respect to the discovery rule and its application in circumstances such as this. 011 Finally, the plaintiff made a demand in this case of rock bottom Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars. He claims that due to Governor Ryan's and Stange's close friendship he is going to obtain an affidavit from Governor Ryan indicating that he did, in 64� fact, sign that letter and it is not a forgery, making the statements uttered at the meeting ' bi4 defamatory. He is also going to attempt to establish that, because those statements are defamatory per se, he does not have to prove damages. He is willing to discuss settlement if you are inclined. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. r Very truly yours, RTI AN & CUISIN R P.C. X' ussell W. Har0an RWH:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW t Ms. Danielle G. Brassea October 11, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET — SUITE 1800r CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 1 fN 1 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 !y ti j� 3A T FRANCIS P. CUISMIER f l 3`1 14 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR } i11 FAX (312) 201-8905 !/:1; I SEP ; E—MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET 3 Lj °' { PAUL C. JAKUBIAK 7 'Ld YVONNE M. KATO -- — CECILIO L. FRANCO IV September 13, 2001 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Danielle: Please be advised that due to our Nation's tragedy on September 11, 2001, the Courts were closed and Judge Diane J. Larsen was scheduled to rule on that date regarding our Motion to Transfer Venue. We will be obtaining a new hearing date on our Motion which will be some time past Columbus Day. Once the date has been obtained, we will advise you of it. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, ;usselll GAN & CU INTER P.C. 0aigja RWH/vcl W. cc: M . Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President; V/M Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISMIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV September 13, 2001 ' 730 ' LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea � Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Danielle: Please be advised that due to our Nation's tragedy on September 11, 2001, the Courts were closed and Judge Diane J. Larsen was scheduled to rule on that date regarding our Motion to Transfer Venue. We will be obtaining a new hearing date on our Motion which will be some time past Columbus Day. Once the date has been obtained, we will advise you of it. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, ;us GAN & CU INIER P.C. RWH/vcl lI W. a iga cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President ffith,A4,Meager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg, Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C.JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO September 14, 2001 CECILIO L. FRANCO IV LEGAL ASSISTANT PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL r� STEWART C. HORTON Mr. Steve B. Veitch Village Manager VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, Illinois 60523 RE: IRMA File No.: 127455 James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R Stange vs. Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Mr. Veitch: Please be advised as a follow-up to our recent conversation, this Motion was scheduled for hearing before Judge Diane Larsen on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. We all know what a tragic day that was for America. The Courts were closed and the new hearing date on our Motion to Transfer Venue is October 10, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. before Judge Larsen. She has been given ample opportunity to review a i'Te`rraterials and has asked repeatedly in the past for additional time in which to consider our argument. I do believe that, at this point in time, she will make a final ruling as far as our Motion to Transfer Venue to DuPage County. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, TI AN & CUISINIER P.C. Russel igan RWH/vcl cc: Ms. Danielle G. Brassea/IRMA Claim No127455 Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee tx egisla, tor files slander .suit a.g, t Oak Brook trusteeS i ~-� BY KATHRYN GRON.DIN lisped these false J Daily Herald.Staff LYriter<Y/ l�i statements with ZYJ O"f IHow much does our. cite lmowledge of their mean to you? y falsity and-or with Former state Rep.James Stange of reckless'disregard / fortheirtruth." d ( OakBrook believes charactermatters Stange and so much personally, professionally Saving lost the ! and politically that he is suing the vil- lage and one ofits trustees,accusing James Stange tion to Karan them of slander. Bushy, and co - Thecase is scheduled to go before ments made by Savino were broad- a Cook County judge next month on cast on cable later. a jurisdictional question. Stange 'Myintegdtyis No.1,"Stange said. seeks at least$3.9 million in dam- "I was an honest legislator.I got a lot ages. done downstate." Stange represented the 44th Dis- , Russ Hartigan,attorneyfor the vil-, trict in Springfield from-1984 to 1992. lage and for Savino, believes there He accuses Trustee Al Savino of step- was no wrongdoing. ping across legal boundaries at an "We think (the case) lacks merit. Oak`Brook village board meeting Hopefully, that will be borne out as April 13, 1999, when.Savin said discovery unfolds,": Hartigan said. Stange's campaign literature was "There's a few arguments...is(it)ex- false. Stange accuses the village of actly what was said or was it taken compounding the issue by rebroad- out of context?There is the public fig- casting the statements on the cable ure argument.The third is, truth is access TV station. considered a defense.," In his campaign for village presi= Stange, who said supporters are dent,Stange and his supporters dis- encouraging him to run again for vil- tributed a copy of an endorsement lage president,said he wants his rep- letter from Gov George Ryan. In it, utation cleared.He hasn't decided if the governor recommended Stange's he will makeanother bid. candidacy and complimented his Northwestern University.law Pro- work in the state legislature. fessorAnthonyD'Amato said details 'Al Savino took it upon himself to will determine the outcome of the say l forged the name during a board case. meeting in front of the television "The complainant does have a cameras that broadcast on cable ac- case for slander.Calling somebody a I cess...and I should be investigated liar in public is slander," D'Amato for fraud,"Stange said. said. According to the lawsuit,Savino is "Saying his campaign is filled with 1 accused of saying Stange's campaign lies isn't saying he is a liar. Every- "was filled with downright,outright body s political campaign is filled lies;" the Ryan letter was a"fraud;" with.lies...:There's a certain leeway "Governor Ryan's office has con- there—for public figures." firmed that the governor did not send Regardless,the first order of busi- it out,the governor did not sign it— ness is jurisdiction.Hartigan has re- his signature is forged;"and"I won- quested the case be moved from der if a case for forgery and/or mail Cook County courts to DuPage be- fraud exists here. cause most of the village falls into the The suit continues,'Alfred Savino suburbancounty A judge could rule intentionally and maliciously pub- Sept.ll. HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER PATRICK H. O'CONNOR FAX (312) 201-8905 E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV May 10, 2001 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative - INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that I have enclosed herein a copy of the new Amended Complaint. Basically all it reflects in terms of any changes is that the Plaintiff now indicates that there was publication in Cook County, as well as, DuPage County. Paragraph eight (8) indicated that the Village of Oak Brook knew it's publication of said meetings will be aired in Cook County, Illinois. We still do not believe that that is enough to keep this case in Cook County and we believe that the proper venue is DuPage County. All of the other essential facts of the Amended Complaint were plead in the original Complaint. Thus, we will be bringing a similar Motion to Dismiss since we do not believe the Amended Complaint adds any strength to their argument. You have until May 29, 2001 to answer or respond to the Complaint and we will bring forth a Motion to Dismiss. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, HAP f4IGAN & CUIS NIE P.C. Ru arti an RWH:kk A Enclosure cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney, enclosure Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 1 ) E!3',, PATRICK H. O'CONNOR � �� f� PAUL C. JAKUBIAK E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CEGILIO L. FRANCO IV ® :._'- [ri t March 7, 2001 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON VILLAGE. OF OAK EROuK, I.1,., ADMINISTRATION Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that we have yet to receive the new Amended Complaint in from opposing counsel. I have informed him that I would like to have that Amended Complaint within the next seven (7) days. Technically, there is nothing before the Court at this point in time, since he has not taken the initiative and recommendation of the Court to file the Amended Complaint. This matter is scheduled for a Case Management Conference on April 3, 2001 before Judge Diane Larsen. We await counsel's response to my request that he send us his new Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's Demand to settle at this point is Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea March 7, 2001 Page 2 As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, IGAN & CUISINIER P.C. 7o w - UAartiganV RWH:jlo Russell W. cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RW HARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV December 20, 2000 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: On December 19, 2000 1 spoke with Patrick Sherlock, plaintiff's counsel. As you know, Plaintiff is due to file his Amended Complaint by December 19, 2000. Thereafter, I would have an opportunity to file a Responsive Pleading on behalf of the defendants. As you know, our previous Motion to Transfer Venue was granted. However, the Judge gave the plaintiff an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint. He will undoubtedly try to keep the case in Cook County for a couple of reasons. One is that the verdicts tend to be higher in Cook County than in DuPage County. The other is that plaintiff's counsel is located in Cook County and a case pending in DuPage County would not be nearly as convenient for him. Right now we are not in a position to argue the merits of the case. The first issue that has to be resolved is venue. If we argue anything other than venue, our objections to having the case proceed in Cook County will be waived. Therefore, the venue issue has to be resolved before these other issues are resolved. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea December 20, 2000 Page 2 The other issues are whether there can even be municipal liability for defamation. Under Illinois law, the distinction between libel and slander, or the written and the spoken word, has for the most part been eliminated. The rules applicable to libel apply with equal force to slander. A statement is considered defamatory in nature if it is false and harms the reputation of another person in that it lowers that person's reputation in the eyes of the community or deters third parties from associating with him. The truth is a complete defense to an action for defamation. The burden of proving the falsity of the statement rests with the plaintiff. If an alleged defamatory statement is substantially true, it is not actionable. The law recognizes individuals should be free to make frank comments concerning an individual or his business in certain instances without fear of being sued. Illinois courts have acknowledged that otherwise actionable statements are privileged when society has a need for the information. Therefore, certain statements are conditionally or absolutely privileged. Determining whether a defamatory statement is protected by an absolute, qualified or conditional privilege is a question of law. An absolute or conditional privilege is an affirmative defense. It may be raised and its application determined through a Motion to Dismiss. When an absolute privilege applies, an action for defamation will not lie, even when malice is alleged. Generally, a statement will be considered privileged if it is made in good faith, by a defendant who has an interest to be upheld, where the statement is limited to that scope and is made on a proper occasion. Certain types of statements made by municipal officials are absolutely privileged as a matter of public policy, so that the speaker will not be deterred from discussing an issue or making a statement by the threat of civil liability. Absolutely privileged communications include those made when discharging a duty under the express authority of law. Statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as administrative hearings, may also be absolutely privileged. The absolute privilege has been recognized and applied to statements made to County Boards, the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, and the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board. Illinois law provides that a federal, state or municipal official cannot be held liable for defamatory statements made in the performance of his or her official duties. Starnes v. International Harvester, 141 III.App.3d 652, 490 N.E.2d 1062 (4 Dist. 1986)appeal denied, 127111.2d 642, 545 N.E.2d 131 (1989). In Loniello v. Fitzgerald, 42 III.App.3d 900, 356 N.E.2d 842 (1 Dist. 1976), charges made by a mayor at a city council meeting in the course of evaluating a proposed zoning variation to the effect that the plaintiff lied and cheated the city were found to be privileged. See also, Josek v. Collis, 272 III.App.3d 200, 649 N.E.2d 964 (2 Dist.. 1995) in which an allegedly libelous statement made by a real estate developer during a finance committee hearing of a city council in which the developer accused the plaintiff of fraud and perjury was found to be absolutely privileged as a matter of law. HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Danielle G. Brassea December 20, 2000 Page 3 In order for the privilege to apply, an allegedly defamatory statement made by a official must relate to matters committed to that official's responsibility. In one decision, the privilege was held not to apply to statements made by a county clerk accusing aldermen of accepting bribes since the clerk had no control or authority over them. In Ware v. Carey, 75 III.App.3d 906, 394 N.E.2d 690 (1 Dist. 1979), the absolute immunity was provided to the Cook County State's Attorney who accused a police superintendent of deliberately covering up police corruption. Section 2-107 of the Tort Immunity Act also provides the local public entity is not liable for injury caused by any action of its employees that is libelous or slanderous or for the provision of information either orally, in writing, in a book or other form of library material. A few examples of cases in which the immunity of the Tort Immunity Act was applied include Meyers v. The Board of Education, 121 III.App.2d 186, 257 N.E.2d 183 (1 Dist. 1970) in which an employee of the Chicago Board of Education brought suit against the board and its director of personnel for defamation when the personnel director allegedly called the plaintiff a con man. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint based upon municipal immunity for defamation under 2-107 of the Act. The court found that the personnel director's remarks, if made, were spoke while the director was acting within the scope of his duty. We intend to get to the merits of the plaintiff's claim once venue considerations have been resolved. We feel that the Tort Immunity Act applies to this action by its express terms. We also feel that there may be absolute privileges that apply to the statements because of the context in which they were made. We also have, as an additional issue, an argument regarding the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff may not have filed his cause of action within a timely manner pursuant to the Statute. As you know, there is a one year Statute of Limitations for defamation actions. Plaintiff claims that it was filed within a year of him becoming aware of the publication over the airways. However, the judge felt that there maybe two Statute of Limitations involved, one for the initial defamation, another for the re-publication and that is another issue that would have to be addressed. Plaintiff also provided me with a demand of Sixty Thousand ($60,000.00) Dollars with which to settle the case. It is my sense that the Plaintiff would take much less. HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Danielle G. Brassea December 20, 2000 Page 4 As always, if you have any questions with regard to the above, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, L2N & I E RfP. . or PHO:jlo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vig. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR PAUL C. JAKUBIAK E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV LEGAL ASSISTANT November 29, 2000 STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: On November 28, 20001 appeared for argument on our Motion to Transfer Venue. As you know, this had been argued once before on November 3, 2000 and the Judge requested additional citation to authority. What she did was grant the Motion to Transfer Venue without prejudice. She has allowed the Plaintiff to replead his cause of action. The Plaintiff will undoubtedly now plead additional connection to Cook County via the Cable broadcast of the allegedly defamatory statements. Plaintiff's counsel is in hopes that the Judge will read the transactional venue provisions broadly. As you know, under Illinois law, pursuant to Section 2-103, an action against a municipality must be brought against that municipality in the county in which its principal office is located. There are two (2) exceptions to that general rule, the first being that if the transaction or some part thereof occurred in another county then that county is also an appropriate venue. The elements of a defamation action include publication of the allegedly defamatory statements to a third person. Plaintiff is alleging that the publication Ms. Danielle G. Brassea November 29, 2000 Page 2 to a third person occurred not only when the statements were spoken at the Village board meeting, but also when those statements were rebroadcast via the Cable company. As I indicated in my previous correspondence, there is no case directly on point in the state of Illinois that either party or the Judge could locate that addressed the issue of whether the publication for the purposes of defamation occurs in the county in which the broadcast waves are received. I was able to find two (2) cases from the state of Missouri that seem to suggest that the defamation occurred in the location where the allegedly defamatory statements are first uttered. y I objected to the Plaintiff's amendment of his Complaint, but it was granted over my objection. However, pursuant to Weber vs. Cueto relate back to the original , some of his amendments may not filing. At this point, we are still arguing about where the proper venue of this action is. That has to be the first issue resolved. If any other issue is brought to the court's attention or raised by the Defendant, other than those that relate to venue, then the court could deem that all objections to venue were thereby waived. For the sake of discussion, I asked Plaintiff's counsel what his longer term intentions were with regard to this case. He indicated to me that he had to speak to his client regarding the eventual resolution of this matter. If I receive any response from Plaintiff's counsel, I will promptly notify you. Very truly yours, HARTIG IS NIER PHO:jlo atrick H. or cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vig. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vig. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV LEGAL ASSISTANT November 7, 2000 STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: On November 3, 2000, 1 appeared for argument our Motion to Transfer Venue and our Motion to Transfer pursuant to the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. Judge Larsen, who had read all the briefs, was unable to come to a decision at that time. She asked for us to submit additional legal memoranda on the issue of whether the broadcast of the alleged defamatory statements in Cook County is sufficient to subject the Defendants to venue in Cook County. Both sides must file their briefs by November 17, 2000. This matter has been continued for further argument until November 28, 2000 at 11:00 AM. We are in the process of doing additional research on the very issue that the Judge has requested. The Plaintiff, in their response brief, argued that despite the fact that the Village of Oak Brook is in DuPage County, Illinois, a broadcast of the defamatory statements reached Cook County. Section 2-103 provides that a municipal defendant must be sued where the entities principle office is located. However, there are two exceptions, one common law and one statutory, to that rule. The statutory exception provides that venue is Ms. Danielle G. Brassea November 7, 2000 Page 2 proper where the transaction or some part thereof took place. The Plaintiff argued that the broadcast of the defamatory statements that reached Cook County means some part of the transaction took place in Cook County. My initial research did not turn up any cases on that subject and we will have to do an exhaustive fifty state search. Very truly yours, jHAMRIE P.C.PHO:kk cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vig. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vig. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook 7.rce. Suite 413 Oakbrook Terrae--, 60181 GENERAL 630.932.IRMA GENERAL FAX 630.932.7378 -LAIms 630.933,:321 CLAIMS FAX 630°33.9680 IRM October 3, 2000 �t Michael Crotty Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Oak Brook, IL 60523 Re: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R Stange v Alfred P Saving and the Village of Oak Brook IRMA File No.: 127455 IRMA Member: The Village of Oak Brook Lawsuit No.: 00 L 004525 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the Complaint filed against the Village and Trustee Alfred Savino, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. In connection with the allegations in the complaint, we have also reviewed both your Commercial General Liability Coverage Document ("CGL") and your Public Officials Liability Coverage Document ("POU). The Complaint includes three counts alleging defamation per se and invasion of privacy- false light. Count I alleges a claim for defamation against Trustee Alfred Savino. Count II alleges a claim for defamation against the Village. Count III alleges a claim for invasion of privacy - false light against Alfred Savino and the Village. Plaintiff alleges in Count III that certain statements made by defendants portrayed him in a false light as a forger and a crooked politician. All three Counts seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 1. General Liability Coverage (CGL) A review of your Commercial General Liability Coverage Document reflects that there is coverage for the compensatory damages sought under all three Counts of the complaint. Because plaintiffs' complaint claims that certain allegedly false statements were made and further allege that defendants "should have known, they were false", the complaint alleges a "personal injury" as defined by the CGL Policy and thus coverage will be extended. However, the complaint also alleges that the defendants "knew" that the statements "were false." As such, if it is established that the defendants knew the statements were false at the time that defendants made or published the statement, IRMA reserves its rights to deny coverage under Exclusion 2, which states: a. "Bodily injury" or"property damage" expected or intended from the standpoint of the Member. This exclusion does not apply to "bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property." Michael Crotty Page 2 October 3, 2000 Additionally, there is no CGL coverage for the punitive damages sought under any count of plaintiffs' complaint. Such damages are precluded by Amendment No. 16 of the CGL policy. 2. Public Official's Liability Coverage (POL) A review of the Public Officials Liability Coverage Document indicates that there is no POL coverage for any of the relief sought under any count directed against either defendant. Please refer to the Exclusion Section, which states: "We shall not be obligated to make any payment, nor to defend any lawsuit in connection with any claim made against the Member: 2. "Brought about or contributed to by fraud, dishonesty or bad faith by a Member or arising from the deliberate violation of any federal, state, or local statute, ordinance, rule or regulation committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the Member." (Also see Amendment 9.) 3. "For any damage arising from bodily injury, sickness, emotional distress, mental anguish, disease or death of any person, or for damage to or destruction of property, including diminution of value or loss of use thereof." 4. "For false arrest, false imprisonment, libel, slander, defamation, invasion of privacy, wrongful eviction, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process." Finally, the plaintiffs claims for punitive damages are excluded from coverage by Amendment 4 of the POL. 3. Conclusion There is CGL coverage for the compensatory relief sought under Counts I, II and III of the complaint, subject to the reservation of rights discussed above. There is no CGL coverage for any of Plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages. There is no POL coverage for any of the relief sought against either defendant. 4. Representation Although some of the counts in the complaint described above are not covered or are subject to the reservations described above, IRMA is prepared to provide a defense for the non-covered allegations, providing that it is determined that there is no conflict of interest. If you or Trustee Savino so choose, you are free to hire your own counsel at your own expense, with regard to the non-covered counts. There may be other exclusions that would apply, therefore, IRMA reserves its rights to invoke any other coverage document provisions. If Plaintiffs Complaint is amended in any way in the future, please send us a copy so that we can review it for possible coverage. The defense of this matter has been assigned to Russ Hartigan of Hartigan & Cuisinier. Their offices are located at 134 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602 and their telephone number is (312) 201-8880. Michael Crotty Page 3 October 3, 2000 If you disagree with our conclusion, you may wish to appeal to the IRMA Chair. You have ten 10) days upon receipt of my letter to appeal in accordance with Article IV, Section 4.04 of the IRMA By-Laws. Should you have any questions regarding this claim, please feel free to contact Claim Representative Danielle Brassea at (630) 932-1221. AM. Bian�chi___ Executive Director SMB/db C: Dan Le Tourneau, Director of Risk Management Services Greg O'Sullivan, Director of Claims Administration File R of R/civil rights/stange -3- HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR PAUL C. JAKUBJAK E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDN ET.ATT.NET YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV LEGAL ASSISTANT October 3, 2000 STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that we are still awaiting the Plaintiff's Response to our Motion to Transfer Venue and their Response was due by September 27, 2000. You will have until October 11, 2000 to Reply. As you are aware, the Hearing date on this Motion is scheduled for November 3, 2000, before Judge Larsen. We will be initiating specialized discovery for Mr. Stange to Answer. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, TuZssell IGAN jrtigakn . W. H RWH:kk Enclosure cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 (312) 201-8880 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET cC� O 1 `}1)U,j� PAUL C. JAKUBIAK I [U YVONNE M. KATO CECILIO L. FRANCO IV August 31, 2000 VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK, IL, LEGAL ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATION STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that our Motion to Transfer Venue was presented before Judge Diane Larsen on August 30, 2000. The Plaintiff has twenty eight (28) days, up through September 27, 2000 to Respond to our Motion. We then have fourteen(14)days to Reply up through October 11, 2000. The Hearing Date on the Motion is scheduled for October 3, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. without further notice. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea August 31, 2000 Page 2 As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, H AN & CUISINIER P.C. Russell W. H ,'gan RWH:to cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO ANGELINE M. MALKOWSKI LEGAL ASSISTANT August 8, 2000 STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: --Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that we have been granted leave to file our Special and Limited Appearance on behalf of Alfred P. Savino and the Village of Oak Brook. We will be filing our Motion to Transfer Venue by August 30, 2000. We plan on meeting with Village President, Ms. Karen M. Bushy, to review some additional items she may have retained from previous elections. We have not heard from Plaintiff's counsel as of this date. I expected to receive a phone call and I will be contacting him shortly. _ Ms. Danielle G. Brassea August 8, 2000 Page 2 As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, RTI AN & U NIER P.C. Russell W. igan RWH:jIo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A..Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 FRANCIS P. CUISINIER FAX (312) 201-8905 PATRICK H. O'CONNOR E-MAIL: RWHARTIGAN@WORLDNET.ATT.NET PAUL C. JAKUBIAK YVONNE M. KATO ANGELINE M. MALKOWSKI August 25, 2000 LEGAL ASSISTANT STEWART C. HORTON Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that, pursuant to our"game plan" with reference to the handling of this claim, we have gone forward and filed our Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to Section 2-101, 103 and 104 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Our Motion was filed on August 22, 2000 and we have scheduled it for a Hearing Date on August 30, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Larsen. I would suspect that opposing counsel will request time in which to respond to our Motion. Prior to filing our Motion, I did receive a call back from Mr. Patrick Sherlock, who filed an Appearance as Co-counsel for Plaintiff on this file. He thought that perhaps a "retraction" might work here, since the damages were not that significant. I informed him I was in no position to make any form of Settlement Offer to him at this stage of the proceedings, that we should continue to litigate the matter. Other than that, I have not received any communication from opposing counsel nor any phone calls. I was the one that had to initiate the phone call to see what their next move might be. Ms. Danielle G. Brassea August 25, 2000 Page 2 1 would like to meet with Village President Bushy within the next few weeks to review old file materials on Mr. James Stange. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, ARTI AN & CUIS IER P.C. I tv/ / Russell W. Ha gan RWH:jlo cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vig. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vlg. Manager Mr. Alfred P. Savino, Trustee HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW l l i1� 11Gf In 134 NORTH LA SALLE STREET - SUITE 1800 �� CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 y15,w RUSSELL W. HARTIGAN (312) 201-8880 / FRANCIS P. CUISINIER - FAX (312) 201-8905; ANDREW P. ALLEN E-MAIL: RWHARTIGANQWORLDNET.ATT.NET - 1,' !s {nA� PATRICK H. O'CONNOR l" <� PAUL C.JAKUBIAK - --- YVONNE M. KATO - LEGAL ASSISTANT July 26, 2000 - STEWART C. HORTON JUL 2 7 Ms. Danielle G. Brassea Senior Claims Representative INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace 22nd Street at Butterfield Road, Suite 412 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 RE: Your File No.: 127455 Claimant: James R. Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange Client: Village of Oak Brook and Alfred P. Savino Case No.: 00 L 004525 Our File No.: 00-30-3886 Date of Loss: 04/13/99 Dear Ms. Brassea: Please be advised that on July 25, 2000 1 met with Village President Karen M. Bushy, Village Manager Stephen B. Veitch, Village Trustee Alfred Savino and Village Attorney Richard A. Martens. As you are aware, the Complaint was filed on April 20, 2000. The Village Board meeting where the statements were -iiade by Trustee Savino occurred on April 13, 1999. In Plaintiffs Complaint he lists the date of April 27, 2000, which he means April 27, 1999, as the date in which he first learned of these alleged statements. We will have to explore the issue of the one (1) year Statute of Limitations as far as when an individual"knew or should have known" of the alleged defamatory remark. That will come only after we file our Motion to Transfer Venue to DuPage County. Of course, the Village of Oak Brook's principal place of business is DuPage County. That Motion will be presented before Judge Diane Larsen in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. She is a rather new Judge, but she has a good reputation to date. First, we will present our Motion to Vacate Technical Defaults and for leave to file our Appearance, Jury Demand, Answer and/or Responsive Pleading and ask for twenty eight (28) days. We also will be Ms. Danielle G. Brassea July 26, 2000 Page 2 filing an Appearance on behalf of Trustee Alfred P. Savino. He has agreed to consent to our filing an Appearance on his behalf without service of Summons. The plan is to file our Motion to Transfer Venue and then discuss this case with opposing counsel to see where exactly they are headed and what is their underlying motive in filing this case. Upon perusal of the Complaint, it does not appear to have any real substance to it and we believe the lawsuit lacks merit. Ironically, Trustee Savino did not run against Mr. Stange, since Mr. Stange ran against the current Village President, Karen M. Bushy. At the April 13, 1999 Village Board meeting referenced in the Complaint and where the comments were made, those comments occurred after the polling places were closed. Trustee Savino's comments were general in nature and not specifically directed to candidate Stange and he posed the query as to whether this was fraud and whether someone should investigate it. Ironically, candidate Stange was also running against a third Village President candidate and his name was David Fichter. This Mr. Fichter and Mr. Stange were having volunteers call saying that they were getting support from Governor Ryan. Apparently, it was thought that the letter sent by Governor Ryan was not done with his permission. Then in checking later with Pate Phillip's brother, it was discovered that the letter was sent from Governor Ryan's office. Candidate Stange had modified the letter to appear as if it was coming from Ryan's Governor's office when, in fact, it was coming from his campaign office. When they were at a White Sox game Pate Phillip and Governor Ryan discussed the letter on or about April 12, 1999 and the Governor indicated that he had not sent the letter and then, subsequently, it was learned through an Eric at the Governor's office that he did sign the letter. Earlier, the Governor had told Art Phillip of Oak Brook that he did not sign it. Apparently the letter was sent out to Village residents in the Village of Oak Brook as campaign material. As far as the cable broadcast is concerned, Media One, since acquired by AT&T, is a public access channel and the broadcast is rebroadcast one (1) week after the Village meeting and it is quite possible that residents in Cook County may have seen it. That does not give them a basis for keeping the case in Cook County. As far as Mr. Stange's political committee is concerned, we are going to do a Freedom of Information Request on it. That will be done by Karen Bushy, the Village President. It will be interesting to note whether the committee exists and, if not, when it was dissolved. As far as the broadcast is concerned, the Village of Oak Brook contracts with a video production company and then that company later delivers it to Media One. There is the ability to edit the broadcast within six (6) days before it is rebroadcasted. HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Danielle G. Brassea July 26, 2000 Page 3 It is hard to imagine, if you accept everything as being true, what exactly the malicious statement uttered by Trustee Savino was and how Mr. Stange could ever prove any damage. We will be meeting with Village President Karen Bushy to review some old political material that may have some reference to this case. I have enclosed the Oak Brook Code as it relates to Punitive Damages. As matters develop, I will keep you informed. Very truly yours, AR IGAN & CUISI ER P.C. 6AJ� RWH:jIo ussell W. rtiga Enclosure cc: Ms. Karen M. Bushy, Vlg. President Mr. Stephen B. Veitch, Vlg. Manager Mr. Richard A. Martens, Vlg. Attorney Mr. Michael Crotty, Asst. Vig. Manager HARTIGAN & CUISINIER P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2120 - Served 2121 - Served 2220 -Not Served 2221 - Not Served 2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail 2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication SUMMONS ALIAS-SUMMONS (Rev. 3/21/95)CCG-1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION (Name all parties) OOL 004525 James R. Stange,Citizens to Elect James R. CALENDAR B Stange LIBEUSLANDER Plaintiffs V. No. Alfred P.Savino,Village of Oak Brook Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Defendants Oak Brook,Illinois 60523 AL�JA-S SUMMONS To each defendant: YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case,a copy of which is hereto attached, or otherwise file appearance, in the office of the Clerk of this Court(located in the Richard J. Daley Center, Room* 801 , Chicago, Illinois 60602)within 30 days after service of this summons,not counting the day of service. IF YOU FAIL .TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF ASKED IN THE COMPLAINT. To the officer: -U ELI PLiC.1NSKi This summons must be returned by the officer or other person f v ervice,with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cann bei�a e,, this summons shall be returned so endorsed. This summons may not be served later than 30 days after . There will be a fee of $104.00 to file your Appearance, WITNESS, or you you may present an Application to Sue or Defend as a Poor Person (form #CCG-19). If approved by the Presiding Judge, the fee will bewaived. Edward T.Joyce Name Edward T.Joyce&Associates,P.C. Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Date of servic .. ..... . .........19.. . . . Address 11 South LaSalle Street,Suite 1600 ( 0.15 bfficer on copy left with City Chicago r other person) Telephone (312)641-2600 Atty.No. 32513 **Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: 2 641-0360 (Area Code) imile Telephone Number) AURELIA PUCINSKI,CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS *Law Division Room 801 Chancery-Divorce Room 802 County Division Room 801 Probate Division Room 1202 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT,LAW DIVISION c,f JAMES R STANGE and CITIZENS TO ) '' ELECT JAMES R STANGE, Plaintiffs, ) 71, V. ) No. 00L 004525 ALFRED P. SAVINO and VILLAGE OF ) CALENDAR E OAK BROOK, ) LISEUSLANDER Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs James Stange and Citizens to Elect James Stange, by and through their attorneys, complain against defendants Alfred P. Savino and the Village of Oak Brook as follows: PARTIES 1. This is an action for defamation per se and invasion of privacy-false light. 2. Plaintiff James Stange is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Citizens to Elect James R. Stange was Stange's political fund raising organization. Plaintiffs are collectively referred to as "Stange." Prior to defendant's tortious conduct, Mr. Stange was a person of good name who enjoyed a good reputation in the community. (5,1.,,, 3. Defendant Alfred Savino ("Savino") is a resident of the State of Illinois and resides in Oak Brook,Illinois. G� 4. ' Defendant Village of Oak Brook is an Illinois municipality located in DuPage County, Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Venue is appropriate in Cook County pursuant to 735 MCS 5/2-101 because the transaction, or some part of the transaction,occurred in Cook County,Illinois. Savino and the Village of Oak Brook knew that the village meeting at which the defamatory remarks were made were going ' to be broadcast in DuPage County and in Cook County. As a result of this brdadcast, defendants defamatory remarks were made, and the injury to Stange occurred, in part, in Cook County. 6. Defendants committed tortious acts within the State of Illinois, County of Cook. Defendants published defamatory statements in Cook County, Illinois and the defamatory statements resulted in economic damages to an Illinois resident. 7. This Court has jurisdiction over Alfred P. Savin because he is a citizen of the State of Illinois. 8. The Court has jurisdiction over the Village of Oak Brook because it is an Illinois municipality. FACTS 9. James Stange was running for the position of President of the Village of Oak Brook against, among others,Alfred P. Savino. 10. Prior to running for village president, Stange had a long reputation of honorable public service as a congressman representing persons in the Oak Brook area. 41 V01 11. Prior to defendant's tortious conduct, Stange was a person of good name who enjoyed a good reputation in the community. - 2 - 12. In his campaign, Stange circulated a letter signed by Governor George Ryan with his promotional literature. The letter signed by Governor Ryan stated (Exhibit A is referred to herein as the"Ryan Letter"): "I was very pleased to hear that you were running for the village presidency of Oak Brook." "The people of Oak Brook are fortunate to have you as a candidate." "Your service in the General Assembly, the extensive network you have built with county, state and federal officials, and your skill with people will serve you well as village president." ". . .the citizens of Oak Brook and DuPage County need qualified, able leaders like Jim Stange in office as we prepare for the challenges of the 21st Century." 13 On April 13, 1999,Alfred Savino made the following statements regarding Stange: a. his campaign was filled with"down right, out right lies;" .j, b. "this piece [Exhibit A the Ryan Letter] mailed by the Citizens to Elect James Stange is a fraud;" yj C. "Governor Ryan's office has confirmed that the Governor did not send it [Exhibit A the Ryan Letter] out,the Governor did not sign it-- his signature is forged;" t -A d. "II wonder if a case for forgery and/or mail fraud exists here." 14 . The Ryan Letter was not a forgery and it was, in fact, signed by Governor George Ryan. 15. Savino's statements were false and he knew, or should have known, they were false at j�Y� the time he made them. Moreover, the Village knew, should have known, or was reckless in not C� - 3 - knowing,that the statements made by Savino were false. 16.1 Plaintiff learned about the false statements set forth above on or about April 21,2000. COUNT I-DEFAMATION PER-SE 17. Stange incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set duol forth herein. This Count is against Alfred Savino only. i 18. The statements set forth above were of and concerning Stange, were false and. i defamatory, and have inflicted substantial injury to Stange's good name and reputation in the ' s community. i 19. The statements set forth above falsely accused Stange of committing criminal acts, i including but not limited to forgery and/or mail fraud. F i 20. Alfred Savino intentionally and maliciously published_these false statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth. 21. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Alfred Savino's statements set forth above Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James R Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange pray that thi3 Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendant Alfred Savino and award them damages in excess of$30,000 punitive damages of$1,000,00000i 1,000,000 reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court determines. COUNT H-DEFAMATION PER-SE 22. Stange incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set forth herein. This Count is against the Village of Oak Brook only. 23. The statements set forth above were of and concerning Stange, were false and 4 _ defamatory, and have inflicted substantial injury to Stange's good name and reputation in the community. 24. The statements set forth above falsely accused Stange of committing criminal acts, including but not limited to forgery and/or mail fraud. 25. Alfred Savino intentionally and maliciously published these false statements with 041 knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth. 26. The Village of Oak Brook had, on information and belief, contracted with a cable i broadcast service to broadcast the April 13, 1999 meeting. The Village arranged to broadcast the meeting, including the defamatory remarks of Alfred Savino, and thus republished the original defamation. 1; 27. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Village of Oak Brook's actions set forth above Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. dpl WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James R Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendant Village of Oak Brook and award them damages in excess of$30,000, punitive damages of$1,000,000, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court determines. COUNT III-INVASION OF PRIVACY-FALSE LIGHT 28. Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants published the false statements set forth above which placed Stange in a IA false light and invaded his privacy by portraying him as a forger and as a"crooked"politician. 30. These false statements placed James Stange in a highly offensive light and a light that 5 - would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 31. Defendants intentionally and maliciously published the false statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth, and with knowledge that said false ( � statements placed Stange in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 32. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' publication of the false statements set j toy forth above, Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James Stange and Citizens to Elect James Stange pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendants Alfred Savino and the Village of Oak Brook and award them damages in excess of$30,000, punitive damages of$1,000,000, reasonable costs and attorneys'fees and such other relief as this Court determines. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues. Respectfully submitted, JAMES R ST GE and the CITIZENS TO ELECT S R STANGE, By: A0nePlainti s Attorneys. Edward T. Joyce Patrick J. Sherlock EDWARD T. JOYCE&ASSOCIATES,P.C. LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK J. SHERLOCK 11 South LaSalle Street Eleven South LaSalle Street Suite 1600 Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 641-2600 (312)641-2600 Atty No. 32513 Atty No. 27812 Date: April 20, 2000 6 - FR51 JAMESx STANGE FAX N0. : 6308879021 Apr. 12 2000 10:46AN P2 Geor e R an G 0 V E R N 0 R 180 N.LaSalle, Suite 1515 2345 S. MacArthur, Suite 23A Chicago, IL 60601 Springfield, IL 62704 312/9601998 Phone Phone 217/726-0998 312/960-1984 Fax Fax 217%726-0984 _ March 30, :999 The Honorable James R. Stange 273 Regent Drive Oak Brook,Illinois 60523 Dear Jim: I've always said that public service is like riding a bicycle--if you fall off, sooner or later you just get back on! I was very pleased to hear that you were running for the village presidency of Oak Brook. The people of Oak Brook are fortunate to have you as a candidate. Your service in the General Assembly,the extensive network you have built with county,state and federal officials,and your skill with people will serve you well as village president. Municipal government is closest to the people,and the citizens of Oak Brook and DuPage County need qualified,able leaders like Jim Stange in office as we prepare for the challenges of the 21 st Century. Best regards, George H. Ryan GOVERNOR www.georgeryan.org This Mailing Was Pald F APR 12 '00 11:07 6308979021 PAGE-e2 f"1 E m Q LEL N Ge "Y' or e I� an GOVERNOR R - N 2345 S. MacArthur, Suite 2SA Go Springfield, IL 62704rn • ` °°7 m CD The H nomble aiues R.'Stange 273 Reg rive Oak Broo ll is 60523LL ' �- `_•�,•... ' tea.vww✓ ^•... •��' 1 illi-iIl. Ll.l•. 1.,13,ii.,Lill ' .]it I;i„fill,l=,1�1 1}lf,lll, ll 1 1 is • , • :•Y;'iYl tela•.�{i�,'�I:.�t.:�'y;��jy{ ' 1 • — .• .. //'•1 • • •{y ilk:4: ii„' �•y.,�1 It • �(•� 1\. d. /�:•"'• .,'k�i w �'�bS ,' f• "I } a ••„s •d.• •� 'Z 1 r .1 `• i i I�ri /C'•I'I„i�rAt ��•„ '+�!�� i� �iwt b��• � �'' RL��''�fj•i It >al,,+*stx}7y r n t •iy F= � '}.4.• ,•�}f' i1 '�1��!� �L I(� '�•?, • � �iY , 'y I�ujt�'}f(ii^"� �•... +. � :'�'��N�tf .�ky��1� Y• n."�, .��.I..�y►y' ( "{, y'.' '��• i •� H rr i;{},��1•`Y`I 00 Z t 1 ff�t, ,jti rfr •s /1 ! t I 1 ��.. (n .. a ., i 1+'Lw. L.N•.1d..1(.S•r��i`A'ii� I +h ' { :, l,MH'�•if• PP ti A �e,r �y� , 1 •i m Cn '• •' ii e •J 6�t�,l.f: 1 tib all El_�i t !{ 1!Mr;.`�1�'SAI` g I i 1 LU tr�{�•f4N'�� j H I;�iyA �M 1 �p °' ,3 �Y flt t jx Ys l+ {�7{��JW�k'TTyY j 1 N F¢"1• '}• . '� '' I��1''"i KfJtir}•�1''i+�l =? 7FOlf '•1::-.,} . 1 1�' 'I�"' cc (Z' .. �i'. i � 4 S '.1•�!(��(F � I`y'`I•,!+i'£' ��•q�„ a.� 1 t, 1'•I��r I• � d�4.i: +,1 F,- til '}'' •�•J)L �� f � .�I',t• J LL 1, Ti 1)v}tly�St� Y .!ft:,r` t::tjpt '��"*+ .... 11' i•• 1 {.µl..v t• is •'3; i hl (! tr,� r..•1 .. . sir•:: 2120 - Served 2121 - Served 2220 • Not Served 2221 - Not Served 2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail 2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication SUMMONS ALIAS-SUMMONS (Rev. 3/21/95) CCG-1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION (Name all parties) James R. Stange, Citizens to Elect James'R. OOL 004525 Stange CALENDAR B LIBEL/SLANDER Plaintiffs V. No. Alfred P. Savino,Village of Oak Brook Village of Oak Brook 1200 Oak Brook Road Defendants Oak Brook,Illinois 60523 AC-145 SUMMONS To each defendant: YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of which is hereto attached, or otherwise file appearance, in the office of the Clerk of this Court (located in the Richard J. Daley Center, Room* 801 , Chicago, Illinois 60602) within 30 days after service of this summons, not counting the day of service. IF YOU FAIL .TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF ASKED IN THE COMPLAINT. To the officer: This summons must be returned by the officer or other person`{ E L I A P LJ C.I i�l S K I ervice,with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after UITRT . M Y y service. If service cannoe'be ma%e, this summons shall be returned so endorsed. This summons may not be served later than 30 days after . There will be a fee of S 104.00 to file your Appearance, 2 or you may present an Application to Sue or Defend as WITNESS, .... .. a Poor Person (form #CCG-19). If approved by the � � .•. Presiding Judge, the fee will bewaived. ` • Edward T.Joyce Name Edward T.Joyce&Associates,P.C. G� Attorney for Plaintiff(s) Date of se .t.. .. .. . . . . . .. . 19.. . . . Address 11 South LaSalle Street,Suite 1600 ( o b officer on copy left with City Chicago r other person) Telephone (312)641-2600 Atty.No. 32513 **Service by Facsimile Transmission will be accepted at: 2 641-0360 (Area Code) imile Telephone Number) AURELIA PUCINSKI,CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS *Law Division Room 801 Chancery-Divorce Room 802 County Division Room 801 Probate Division Room 1202 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY,ILLINOIS\ COUNTY DEPARTMENT,LAW DIVISION JAMES R STANGE and CITIZENS TO 'j- ELECT JAMES R STANGE, ) 3 Zc- � o p Plaintiffs, ) �- V. ) No. 001. 004525 ALFRED P. SAVINO and VILLAGE OF ) CALERDAR B OAK BROOK, ) LIS R/SLHER Defendants. ) COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs James Stange and Citizens to Elect James Stange, by and through their attorneys, complain against defendants Alfred P. Savino and the Village of Oak Brook as follows: PARTIES 1. This is an action for defamation per se and invasion of privacy-false light. 2. Plaintiff James Stange is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Citizens to Elect James R Stange was Stange's political fund raising organization. Plaintiffs are collectively referred to as "Stange." Prior to defendant's tortious conduct, Mr. Stange was a person of good name who enjoyed a good reputation in the community. 3. Defendant Alfred Savino ("Savino") is a resident of the State of Illinois and resides in Oak Brook, Illinois. 4. Defendant Village of Oak Brook is an Illinois municipality located in DuPage County, Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Venue is appropriate in Cook County pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the transaction,or some part of the transaction, occurred in Cook County, Illinois. Savino and the Village of Oak Brook knew that the village meeting at which the defamatory remarks were made were going to be broadcast in DuPage County and in Cook County. As a result of this brdadcast,defendants defamatory remarks were made, and the injury to Stange occurred, in part, in Cook County. 6. Defendants committed tortious acts within the State of Illinois, County of Cook. Defendants published defamatory statements in Cook County, Illinois and the defamatory statements resulted in economic damages to an Illinois resident. 7. This Court has jurisdiction over Alfred P. Savino because he is a citizen of the State of Illinois. 8. The Court has jurisdiction over the Village of Oak Brook because it is an Illinois municipality. FACTS 9. James Stange was running for the position of President of the Village of Oak Brook against, among others, Alfred P. Savino. 10. Prior to running for village president, Stange had a long reputation of honorable public service as a congressman representing persons in the Oak Brook area. 11. Prior to defendant's tortious conduct, Stange was a person of good name who enjoyed a good reputation in the community. 2 _ 12. In his campaign Stange circulated a letter signed by Governor George Ryan with his promotional literature. The letter signed by Governor Ryan stated (Exhibit A is referred to herein as the"Ryan Letter"): "I was very pleased to hear that you were running for the village presidency of Oak Brook." "The people of Oak Brook are fortunate to have you as a candidate." "Your service in the General Assembly, the extensive network you have built with county, state and federal officials, and your skill with people will serve you well as village president." the citizens of Oak Brook and DuPage County need qualified, able leaders like Tim Stange in office as we prepare for the challenges of the 21"Century." 13. On April 13, 1999,Alfred Savino made the following statements regarding Stange: a. his campaign was filled with"down right, out right lies;" b. "this piece [Exhibit A the Ryan Letter] mailed by the Citizens to Elect James Stange is a fraud;" C. "Governor Ryan's office has confirmed that the Governor did not send it [Exhibit A the Ryan Letter] out,the Governor did not sign it— his signature is forged;" d. "I wonder if a case for forgery and/or mail fraud exists here." 14. The Ryan Letter was not a forgery and it was, in fact, signed by Governor George Ryan. 15. Savino's statements were false and he knew, or should have known, they were false at the time he made them. Moreover, the Village knew, should have known or was reckless in not - 3 - knowing,that the statements made by Savino were false. 16. Plaintifflearned about the false statements set forth above on or about April 27, 2000. COUNT I-DEFAMATION PER-SE 17. Stange incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set forth herein. This Count is against Alfred Savino only. 18. The statements set forth above were of and concerning Stange, were false and defamatory, and have inflicted substantial injury to Stange's good name and reputation in the community. 19. The statements set forth above falsely accused Stange of committing criminal acts, including but not limited to forgery and/or mail fraud. 20. Alfred Savino intentionally and maliciously published these false statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth. 21. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Alfred Savino's statements set forth above Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James R Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange pray that thi3 Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendant Alfred Savino and award them damages in excess of$30,000, punitive damages of$1,000,000, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court determines. COUNT H-DEFAMATION PER-SE 22. Stange incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set forth herein. This Count is against the Village of Oak Brook only. 23. The statements set forth above were of and concerning Stange, were false and 4 — defamatory, and have inflicted substantial injury to Stange's good name and reputation in the community. 24. The statements set forth above falsely accused Stange of committing criminal acts, including but not limited to forgery and/or mail fraud. 25. Alfred Savino intentionally and maliciously published these false statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth. _..__..26._ 4 +The Village of Oak Brook had, on information and belief, contracted with a cable broadcast service to broadcast the April 13, 1999 meeting. The Village arranged to broadcast the meeting, including the defamatory remarks of Alfred Savino, and thus republished the original defamation. 27. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Village of Oak Brook's actions set forth above Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James R Stange and Citizens to Elect James R. Stange pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendant Village of Oak Brook and award them damages in excess of$30,000, punitive damages of$1,000,000, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court determines. COUNT III-INVASION OF PRIVACY-FALSE LIGHT 28. Plaintiffs incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 16 as though fully set forth herein. 29. Defendants published the false statements set forth above which placed Stange in a false light and invaded his privacy by portraying him as a forger and as a"crooked" politician. 30. These false statements placed James Stange in a highly offensive light and a light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 31. Defendants intentionally and maliciously published the false statements with knowledge of their falsity and/or with reckless disregard for their truth, and with knowledge that said false statements placed Stange in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 32. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' publication of the false statements set forth above, Stange has been injured and suffered damage to his name and reputation. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs James Stange and Citizens to Elect James Stange pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against defendants Alfred Savino and the Village of Oak Brook and award them damages in excess of$30,000, punitive damages of$1,000,000, reasonable costs and attorneys'fees and such other relief as this Court determines. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury on all issues. Respectfully submitted, JAMES R. ST GE and the CITIZENS TO ELECT S R. STANGE, By: ` One of Plainti s Attorneys. Edward T. Joyce Patrick J. Sherlock EDWARD T. JOYCE&ASSOCIATES,P.C. LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK J. SHERLOCK 11 South LaSalle Street Eleven South LaSalle Street Suite 1600 Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 641-2600 (312)641-2600 Atty No. 32513 Atty No. 27812 Date: April 20, 2000 6 - FR&-1 JAMCSx STANCE FAX N0. : 6308879021 Apr. 12 2000 10:46At+ P2 G e o1gt R a_n G 0 V E R N ® R 180 N.LaSalle, Suite 1515 2345 S. MacArthur, Suite 25A Chicago,IL 60601 Springfield, IL 62704 Phone 217/726-0998 312/960-1998 Phone Fax 217%726-0984 312/960.1984 Fax _ Marah 30, 1999 The Honorable James R. Stange 273 Regent Drive Oak Brook,Illinois 60523 Dear Jim:. I've always said that public service is like riding a bicycle--if you fall off, sooner or later you just get back on! I was very pleased to hear that you were running for the village presidency of Oak Brook. The people of Oak Brook are fortunate to have you as a candidate. Your service in the General Assembly,the extensive network you have built with county, state and federal officials,and your skill with people will serve you well as village president. Municipal government is closest to the people,and the citizens of Oak Brook and DuPage County need qualified,able leaders like Jim Stange in office as we prepare for the challenges of the 21 st Century. Best regards, George H. Ryan GOVERNOR www.georgeryan.org This Meiling Was Pald F- � ' APR 12 '00 11:0? 6308879021 PAG=.22 a- r` m a G,"e T an , . .. . N r •• G O V E R N O R N m FL 2345 S. MacArthur, Suit(! 25Acc Springfield, IL 62704 m • ry) CD The"HKe ,*Stange0; 273 Re'• Oak Br23- 0 ` ...r••• ....• ...�...,�r,rwaw«r ,w�. til k� LL .. . �� . • : . . . .I;1L1)1;�,1)�(IL)�:;:1.%I1111),' 1111. .1►11►1,1 G 1 i, 1 ;;. � I 1 I . ', .t :�•,;:; .1`+�,. :�L 4 ��r4;r�•.r...rl 1j�''� �fY• �'1 �'''P t/':�Y•. .� •^.) r I•,• r .. (/r �., ', .: •r, �i.:� :'::.rt'�. r�r��.:J?�r('�•i I.l� , t�1,1++:1+1 I ''T <i. R ��r�t•�1 '�� ti'y •z ris�'•.� i I. • r 'i;i:;�;.d Oji':i<�'.'Nr•t'1•i.`•i~!FJta le' ( '1�.�j '+i t 1 r �i�i� 1 jl • 'i�:"�'?s..�.t!' •:+.�:yn�,l.':•yt � f,r� _!Ay f �i�yti y��0 .trap, '.�•!(L�� wr Rl �{r• �,C'tb.... _ l i •J,r t- �;P,��Ii.�lf. • '. � •<•'•tr: '''w'. '.�.: i�t.;��r�I11Yf i�'jL' 11�•` •1'!�1({�, 1�� +•;��iJ •� 9 (r' fy.� r .•�`-� 1 +R �( i ; �„�j<ii��l�� , �''ii��l:1,Kiiil�#;. � ,j r. .�;�•L,L.L�, .•,r�r'rf r P•i F, {.J�af 1• •:�i,d� f' r r ,� ' .t•�, °1�•t: 9:•a , t K V .+ r�) •1i ��'.j d•�� {{�7 ,lr5f�,Y�`' .I-I; J n •Cryl()) • � ',,"• �,':' '•tlpl}'"i'i�;l,"�,' �h'f�lt. ,� ,(a ��IVG�Ir lf�l� I r ' MM �� rl, �•.., t '.�laF�1,�)��{ \• ::j ;i:: •`.'�':. -:{t�y1 1Si.�y�l >; ! � :�µ� J�� i! 1 � � I��r�l��+ 111 - 1'a,a•�;;: 1�1y(t lr tt7ii. 1 t! .�y" I Jit �• �i L-1' ••�•� r- L�4t t�':r4,`,11�R1(�( t >. �M1•+i1!Y §SkWj i' )'.;: .`"�. ii' Sl•�t is i''+'+ , ttr h 3'f �C+ , `+3 11 t. In i. .^t•" i'7rr i!'; ! • ••i....:�..tJ,:•.YYw:w' Jt�.l'.i.+:Mi.F�+,'j�Il:?i .�(•'.1 + � A I��yiO�. II' .. 'v' 1 ;1-110}�{; r..l. t ,}��f•,I'Mik({r1 X .. r't..'• i��.:!.:'•ir4111�.f�i tt��•++1:�7�'+•J 1, �, = k 4�N-J� '1 �)1� `Sa�(1V..lI�+. w � ION t� f r. n•I.. i{Ji1� t O 11 :•Y:: ' T�� <�,!{T�:]•'a�"Cltl_ i i'1! 1•„�',r. �' : r' ( ' 1: fl ,. .�. cn "•.,-. :_:;�.,.;,:�i:=.;1.'`'S'_ r art.(t I"r;b ` �w l+l ;Y�i» ,. '� t ►` � 0 J11 t1t1 i Ill .'. •'• .:':.r.s•.5.;. f: ...�}r^'..J r .r M,�'(�' l'r >✓� t !li 7 r I -'JTIi{11 Q .;.' '.i•�';••v:;.{,t:.a„•.n;4�i.S�llgi;i��')i'�r.,1' r7Qtt; f �* 1 � yah SIN ti' 'r• •! .•,: i �1`rt,� r�,�1��1?.wi��+�'�isttk• � r�. l +� •� '.-t t \'777377"�ih�1{• I��t,`�'. s;�? �!' �r a !� t y`��i`'�'� O :�S_ytcl F+1�,:}�j. '+;5. ly,l•� r�7^ !��,•_�, !7 r i r r I � �,�i, 'i� .1 ' J ) (at9 �, ►� .. •. .�4'•.�':i %^, ?,I:•r�:�'�!'li:Ir.F's,{��r�y�.! �'��1{`'•�'�'"'rt ��+�.I�� •• MiJ.M11I. 1��] •i�2]111 ,��'1 I. ) }T� t; ;�}��i�}�� f. I��{{,,.�.ffn•)i'r(C,,�,.:,��. '. ,tr.4 1•'}';ai�';I.r..;.JII r ��1., '1 +�1.,a`�., �r � r r.rr �'r+,1'r��{'•1'=.�'.�..11'1•`.1,^1(I�tr.{ a •.ti: :f. r�:.I:.fir? I•I+ !+� I, .t•"i '.''f:/ In •a f,.1, •� ..\I. 1. ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 -� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of '•• policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: "A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 J § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 —� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of '�- policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES` DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 --� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental,and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of ..' policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy,or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2.27 ----� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set. forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 --� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: "A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: r. (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 -� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: r. (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 -� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of `•�- policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 ADMINISTRATION § 2-27 --� Sec. 2-27. Indemnification of the Village President and Trustees. (a) This Board of Trustees finds as follows: (1) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for the exercise of discretion in determining policies. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-201 (Local Governmental and Governmental Employ- ees Tort Immunity Act), which provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a public em- ployee serving in a position involving the determination of `•�- policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for any injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such discretion even though abused." (2) That it is the public policy of the State that members of governmental bodies shall not be liable in damages for acts or omissions in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such acts or omissions constitute wilful and wanton conduct. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-202, which provides: 'A public employee is not liable for his act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law unless such act or omission constitutes willful and wanton conduct." (3) That it is the policy of the State that the numbers of gov- ernmental bodies shall not be liable for punitive or exem- plary damages for acts or omissions made while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity. This public policy is set forth in 745 Illinois Compiled Statutes 10/2-102, which provides in part: Supp. No. 66 63 § 2-27 OAK BROOK CODE "In addition, no public official is liable to pay punitive or exemplary damages in any action arising out of an act or omission made by the public official while serving in an official, executive, legislative, quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial capacity, brought directly or indirectly against him by the injured party or a third party." (b) Therefore, if any claim or action not covered by insurance, including claims for exemplary or punitive damages, is instituted against any member of the Board of Trustees, including the Vil- lage President, in connection with any acts or omissions in determining policy, or in connection with any act or omission in the execution or enforcement of any law, unless such act or omission constitutes wilful and wanton conduct, the Village shall: (1) Appear and defend against the claim or action; and (2) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a judgment and court costs based on such claim or action; and (3) Pay or indemnify the member of the Board of Trustees for a compromise or settlement of such claim or action; provided, the settlement is approved by the Board of Trustees. (Ord. No. G-522, § 1, 10-26-93) ARTICLE III. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES' DIVISION 1. VILLAGE PRESIDENT Sec. 2-28. President; general duties. The President shall perform all the duties which are prescribed by law, including ordinances, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. The President, from time 1. See also Fire Department, Ch. 6, § 6-16 et seq.; Village Engineer, Ch. 12, § 12-20 et seq. Supp. No. 66 64 'Z,' O F 04,t P X90 a o e A G A � CO U NY, VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK 1200 OAK BROOK ROAD OAK BROOK, ILLINOIS 60523- 2255 June 30, 2000 PHONE: 630 990-3000 FAX: 630 990-0876 WEBSITE: "-wiv.oak-brook.org CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION MEMO TO: Village President& Board of Trustees SUBJECT: Defamation Lawsuit Filed by James Stange Against Trustee Savino and the Village Attached is a copy of a lawsuit filed by James Stange in Cook County Circuit Court against Trustee Savino and the Village. The Village was served yesterday with this lawsuit. The suit alleges that Trustee Savino defamed Mr. Stange at the Village Board meeting on April 13, 1999 and that the Village participated in this alleged defamation by republishing Trustee Savino's remarks in the cable TV broadcast of the meeting. Count I is against only Trustee Savino; Count II is against only the Village; and Count III (invasion of privacy-false light)is against both Trustee Savino and the Village. Each count asks for$30,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Media One(AT&T) is not named in the suit. The suit states in paragraph 16 that the plaintiff learned about the allegedly false statements attributed to Trustee Savino on April 27, 2000, over a year after the statements were allegedly made. The lawsuit was filed on April 20, 2000. Obviously there are a host of statute of limitations and other legal issues raised by this lawsuit which we are reviewing. There are also a number of factual issues which are raised in the Complaint, including the allegation that Mr. Stange has "a long reputation of honorable public service as a congressman representing persons in the Oak Brook area,"(paragraph 10). As of yesterday, Trustee Savino had not been served, but we have faxed him a copy of the Complaint. At this juncture, I advise that board members decline to discuss this case with the press or others on the advice of the Village Attorney. We have referred the case to IRMA and have asked that they undertake the defense of both Trustee Savino and the Village. We will keep you advised as developments occur. In the meantime, best wishes for the 4th of July holiday. Respectfully submitted, Richard A. Martens Village Attorney RAM:sps Attachment cc: Stephen B. Veitch, Village Manager 5enz by: 1heAA; 630 832 7378; 1 Jjl'00 2:23PM;Job 268;Page 1 To:. OAK BROOK At: 9905756 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK MANAGEMMT AGENCY One Oakbrook Terrace—Suite 412 IRA% OakbrookTer,ace,IL001$1 (630)932.4T62—Gen" (630)932.1221-Claims FACSIMILEDATA TRANSMISSION Dale: - Total#of Pages: -' y-, (Including this cover page) To: d i ! C-rZ7 At: 11�4 From. L r 4 &fA7 '2-f f'f Fax*. (630).932-7378-General (630)932-9680-Claims Department fZA: �JC� U P✓ct.7 e _S u e_"' S A o Comments: 1F THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THIS TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CALL US AT: M (630) 932-1221 FOR FAXES FROM IRMA'S CLAIMS DEPARTMENT C] (630)932-4762 FOR FAXES FROM ALL OTHER IRMA DEPARTMENTS This information Is intended only for the use of the Individual or entity to which It is addressed and may contain Infcrmatlon;hat Is privileged, confldenflal and exempt from disdosure under applicable law. If you are not the Intended redplent or the employee or agent responsible for deMvsring It fo the intended recipient.you are homby not;ried that any dissemination,distributlen or copylrg of this communication is sfrictiy pmhlbltsd. If you have received this Information in error,please notify us im.nedlatety by wflPhona and return the orfginal infcrmadon to us at Me above address via tie U.S.Postal Service. Thank You. sent by: 1HNIA; 630 932 7378; 11 Jul'00 2;23PM;Job 268;Page 2/14 LN'rfP,G0 'ERNMEN7AL RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM TO: Executive Committee Board of Directors IRA44J FROM: operatilmCWO�42MA Staff DATE: May 8, 2000 RE: Coverage Issues Workshop— Evaluations/Recommendations On March 1, 2000, our Coverage Workshop met and identified coverage issues which, we L'614VB, WI ,Uld Lid v( II'6 CaL 1V LI ro MGA I bui 5. Cis Mai vi l le, 2800, sand April 13, 2480, the Operations Committee, members of staff, corporate counsel and our insurance consultants discussed the points raised at our first workshop meeting. On May 2, 2000, the Coverage Workshop met again and reviewed materials submitted by the Operations Committee. As a result Of ttsse 4114 arta a0 ,we have developed 044rttig proposed Changes to the IRMA Coverage document: 1. Defense of Nott-Covered A ggations. The "no coverage-no defense" amendment, which was passed In 1992, provides that IRMA will not provide a defense for clalms"to which this coverage document does not apply . . . except at the sole discretion of(IRMA)." Everyone is now in agreement that, except in cases of clear and obvious conflict of Interest, IRMA should exercise its discretion in favor of affording a "united defense" which will include non-covered claims as well as covered claims. In this regard, we have defended non-covered as well as covered counts in cases involving police liability, IRMA will not cistomarily provide separate counsel for non-covered allegations. Instead, IRMA will offer a unified defense for all claims, by IRMA-approved counsel. This kind of defense will be presented In cases containing some covered allegations and some non-covered allegations, but there will need to be at least one covered count to provide a defense for the non- covered counts. 2. Defense of Cases Involving Potentially Covered Damage Claims for Which Coverage as Precluded Because of Specific Allegations In Plaintiffs Complaint This kind of situation existed in the Glendale Heights case and the Glencoe case, titled Wayne v. Daikin. In those cases, it was ate# that the defendent not only intended to do what it or he d"idt.but Aso,ftt it or he spedfically Intended to harm plaintiffs,allegedly by depriving them of their constitutional rights; Glenda:e Heights, Glencoe, and Dalkin steadfastly denied these allegations._ Glencoe settled and sought reimbursement from IRMA. There is now a consensus` that, in this Ibad *1RMA;shoal offer to provide a"unified defense"by tRMA appointed counsel. The defense will be initially funded by IRMA (who will periodically advise the Member-of defense expenditures)subject to reimbursement. to IRMA in the event that the coverage-defeating allegations result in an advee grnent orsetifoer ;; .tha ildember wishes to retain separate counsel of its choosing, it is fres to do so at its own expense without :any expectation of reimbursement by IRMA. Serving Wirc,e F'uti'le C Entities S r;,e :979 1 Sent 8y: IFMA; 630 932 7378; 11 Jil'OO 2;24P41;J:)b 268;Page 3/14 Coverage Issues Workshop Evaluations/Recommendations May 8, 2000 Page 2 3. Defense of Cases Involving Only Non-Monetary Claims and Other Claim$ as to Which There Is Clearly No Coverage. Claims of this sort, often resulting from zoning or land-use decisions, customarily involve injunction, declaratory judgment, mandamus, and other equitable remedies. In this regard, it is the view of the workshop participants that IRMA should not be responsible for funding litigation resulting frorr decisions that may reflect the local political environment(as opposed to legal precedence). These local decisions should not be bome by the entire IRMA membership, where there are no covered damage claims. As a result, the consensus here is that there should continue to be no IRMA coverage or defense for these types of claims. It was also learned that these kinds of legal disputes would also not be covered by the commercial insurance market place. 4. Initial Activities and Involvement by IRMA. IRMA has traditiorally provided risk management consulting services in pre-claims or lawsuits. The consensus is that these services should continue and, possibly, that they may be increased and broadened. Section 4.01 (vii) requires our membership ". . . to promptly report in writing to IRMA, any occurrence, claim or lawsuit which a Member could reasonably conclude is entitled to coverage from IRMA." On a daily basis, IRMA responds to these kinds of reports, defends lawsuits, and handles claims, Additionally, however, Members are encouraged to report to IRMA any facts and situations which appear to present a substantial likelihood of ripening into a claim or lawsuit, These types of situations may afford both IRMA and the Member an opportunity to benefit from risk management consulting services_ In any gray area situation or In matters to which there is questionable coverage, IRMA should be available for consultation. It should be noted that, if after the initial stage of the consultation, It Is determined that this is a non-covered claim, IRMA will only continue at the expressed Invitation of the Member_ Education. There is a strong consensus that more has to be cone about educating our IRMA membership in connection with IRMA's ongoing claims handling and coverage. Cases in which coverage has been declined are very rare. Coverage is extended wherever possible. Unfortunately, the very small number of cases in which coverage has been declined seems to become most'newsworthy"within the IRMA organization. A redoubled effort to educate our membership in this regard needs to be undertaken. Our efforts should also include explanation of policies, preparation and distribution of executive summaries cf policy provisions, and regular coverage workshops to review and explain coverage issues. tient by: 1hMA; 63G 932 7378; 1 J�j1'90 2:25Pb1;Joo 268;Page 4/14 Coverage Issues Workshop Evaluations/Recommendations May 8, 2000 Page 3 6. Additional Actions& Related Matters a. IRMA's staff attorney will work on drafting a model public officials' indemnification ordinance that clarifies the extent of available coverage. b. Consideration to expanding the defense obligation is being addressed through the #2 recommendation listed above. We also need to communicate more with the a:ected officials. C. As to the question of Insurability of punitive damages, see Jay Judge's legal opinion. d. As to a comparison of IRMA coverage to commercial insurance, Tom Kelly of Mack& Parker Is in the process of developing a comparison checklist. e. Attached is a copy of staffs April 4, 2000 Memorandum to the Operations Committee, setting forth comments concerning the possible dollar amounts associated with proposed changes to the coverage documents or practices. f. The "no greater risk than to the general public" defense in worker's compensation cases was discussed. It was, however, once again observed that this is an issue related to the defense of worker's compensation claims, rather than coverage for such claims. We believe that the foregoing addresses the points, which are currently of concern. This process has, in our view, been quite beneficial. 1,'1ie suggest, in this regard, that we regularly schedule coverage workshops on an annual basis. SMB/mh ca..r.p.ipw.w-faropi�-M.ay.uu.a wort.nop—l.rWlom•R.:amm.ea.aon. 6enc by: 1hIVIA; 630 932 13/8; 1 JJ1'A 2:25PLi;Jotn 268;Page 5/14 JUDGE&•JAMES,LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 422'N.NOA'I'ISMT HIGKW,&Y,S1=200 P,Lkx RUvoz,ILLiNo.s 60068,3283 JAY S.JUVO4 /siOLRICK P.JOHNSTON,JPi {847}292-1200 • FAX:(94n292-120?. VA-MAYN JAMBS AN DERUKI KKISTINC A.KARLIN STSY[k A.KOZICKI WAY NIL C,0RUCAR CAKYA•LYNN F.7wARD V.SUTTON NANS A.MAST OANIKL M.LKTROX #ALSO LIUCKS&D IN INO(AhA S.A.OCKSON June 9, 1991 }ALSO LICLNS£D IN MISSOUP Dan LeToumeau Director of Risk Management Services La ajovernmentd Rask Mmagement Agen_zy PUYU) One Oakbrook Ttaue . 22nd Street at Entteriield Road , S%a to 412 Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181 Re: Attorpxy General Opinion V-e Insurande For Punitive Q.L File No. 162197-1125,.A D es,r Dan, This follows our discussion last week and my letter cf 56197 x5garding whetlar insurance cavezage may be purchased by municipalities to Dover punitive damages as has been suggested is permisslbla by the Attorney Ceaezal'Opinion No, 96-034(1213196;. 'I4>,lg hi&Wta the problems with insurance mve:age for puultive daumles for mzniolpalides, It will discuss tbsee aim of concern as to why there can be no lwarauca coverage for punitive damages against mLnicip alftiea; (1) Punitive damages are awa.ded for public policy reasons of: (a) to purist}the wrongdoer; and (n) to set an example to discourage when from the sante wroUfal conduit, If imurawe pays, iustead of to wrongdoer, these pOlic policy :msons are defeated. The insurarre com;my, .not the wrongdoa , pays. The wrongful conduct is, in fact, encouraged because the insursmce oompaw , not the wrongdoer, pzys. (2) Punid'ta damages are a•Na:ded for public polity rbasons of; (a) to punish the wrongdoer; a:.d (b) to set an example to discourage other- ftom the Same wxongfLl conduct, 7 cent by; LhMA; 630 032 7378; 11 ii.: '00 2:26PM;J:)b 268;Page 8,,-4 J D GR 8c JAMES,LTD. AT-rOR,NZY8 AT LAW Dau Lo'Toumezu Tune 9, 1991 'age 2 , If a municipality pays, instead of the wrongdoer, then the public prim reasons era defeated. The taxpayers,not the wrongdoer, pays. The wrongful conduct is encouraged because the taxpayers,not the wrougdear,pays.. (3) To tae extent that the Scot,and Beawr cases suggest that it does not violate public policy to auow insurance coverage for the employer's vicarious liabilitylrespondeat s'.rpetior. �;�y ibr purisive damages; they are incorzsct{and;T believe;would not be iollnwed by theMliAols Supxeme•Court), nexe is no vicarious liability for punitive damages for-an emplo jet. Ar. employer is liable for punitive damages only if the einplcyar approves, authorizes, ratifies or -pa.-dcipates-in the wrong t zonduct.of.the_o=Vloy.94;_zp4 f4t4e eu�.ploy_e:-does such,- Is liable in its own sight for its own Wndud, not vieuiously. Here thea is a brief summary of the argmnents and the applicable case law supporting the premise that there c=bo no imutance coverage for punitive damages for municipalities. �hlic Polic�v PrOlziklt Tnv t as P Coveracre For punitive pamagea Two eases in Minis have dealt with the question of puaitive danmgea and i=rauce coverage: (1)Scott v, rnvantParking,Inc., 105 MI.App.2d 133,245 N.B.2d 1.24(1969);and(2)Beaver Y. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 95 Til. App. 2d 122, +M N.B,2d 1058 (1981.), Scott•v, Lts'tant.Parkfng, Inc., 105111. App. 2d 133, 245 N.E.2d 124 (1969), held thbre is insurance coverage for punitive damages for au employer as a result of aL employ-cols vicarious liability under respondeat superior. However, Scott is In error. Scott also provides a vc4 shallow analysis of the is6e. Its logic and precedential'Ygue swmo weak, at best. (Dui the other hand, Beaver v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 95 Ill. App, 2d 122, 420 X,E-2d 1058 (1981),hold that it is contrary to public policy to permit coverago for pxlitiv a damages- Au analysis of thes9 cases does show that it violates the zuderlving public and societal policy of pun ova damages to alloy a wiongdocr to shift the award hs=st pay m pualive damages away from himself and.onto ata insurance ceul~pany, and ultimately ozho&-s inrmueatpolicyl.olders of the insurer who pay higher premiums. In Swa Y. instant Parking, Inc., 105111, Alm. 2d 12.3, 245 .w1.2d 124 (1.969), tht court found that punitive damages cculd bo awarded in 7: anis under a Comprehensive 65neral Liability Policy. 8 bent by: iHMA; 630 932 7378; , i .!ul '00 2:27PkI;Job 268;Page 7114 JUDGE LL JA Y1�..'S,uLL. ATT0FtNEY6 AT LAW b au LeTournmau lune 9, 1997 Pago 3 'te eotut 1a Scott apecifiealltiy stated; Accordingly, we hold that these words include inji xy cat:sed by wilful and wanton misconduct, and since punitive damages =y be allowed i" such cases, they are part of'all sums' which the insurer became liable to pay, and thea are covered by the exyressed wording of the policy. x.45 i�a.2d•tt 126.) . Scott recagnlzed It would be contrary to the underlying concept of puzzitiv a damages to permit insurance coverage for the cmploywwrongdoer,but held there weld be no wveraga for the employee liable undx respondeat superior (failing to dismi the rule that an employer arinnt be liable fcr p=ilive da=gea under respondeat superior theories). The court in Scott filled to carefully and thorasghly ardyza the policy in%bn lud ug there was cov=age, It was zeasoned that the policy-covered "all auras" for damrgea and since punitive damages were damages,the policy would cover puritivo damages. Unfortunately,the dcfmi:ion of the applicable terms in the p(;Icy was ignored by or escaped the scrutiny of the court in Scott. The policy limited, by def WfAon, damages by bodily i;jury or property damage. Obviously,puzidve damages are not dacnagea for bodily in'ury or property damage, Analysis of the policy team and applicable law reveal tha defiei.enciea in the analysis in Scott. The Izu:14 Agreement of the ppllcy provides that the company will pay 'damages because of bodily inj.ry or property damage.` 'Damages" is defined as ''rwUing from bodily i4ury and . . . proparty damage.' Oa the other hand,punitive damages or exemplary damages are no:defined so u to include bodily In or property damage. Black'g Law Dictionary, for example, de#ines the term.'Fttrlttvs damages' as follows: Exemplary damages aro damages on an increased scale awarded to plaintiff ovu and above what 41 barely cotaperzate him for his property loss, where the wrong done to him was activated by circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, for wanton and wicked conduct on,the part of tbA defendant, and are intended to solace the plaintiff for mental anguish, laceration of his feelings, shams, degradation,.or other aggravations of the original wrong, or elsek to punish the defendant for hia evil nehaAor or to maks at example of him, for which reason they are also celled 'punitive' or 'purltory' damages or 'vindictive' damages and (vuUarly) 'smart-money.' �enL dy: 1r:rnN; bau 832 /3/a; 1 Jji'JQ 2;27PeI;J0b 268;Page 8/'.4 JIM GE&JAs'YlES,LTD. ATTCRKEYB AT LAW Dau UTous=u Tune 9, 1997 Page 4 Thus, it appears that the term "punitive damages" is net included within the meaning of the term "damages',m used in a standard Automobile or general Liability Policy. An award of punitive damages would not corstitate&a award for bodily hJurp or property damage. With all dub deference to the appellate court In Scott, the issue,with respect to insurance cove-rage for punitive damages was in its infancy It 1969 when the case•was decided. It scams unlikely that Scott would be similarly decided today. .beaver v. Couttoy Mutual Insurance Co.,95 Ill. App.3d 1122, 420 NX.2d 1058(1981),represents the current applicable law in Dihmis on this issue, Beaver'fields that the public policy underlying punitive dames is to discourage certain conduct by punishing the wrongdoer. If the wrongdoer can insure against the puntshmeat,.tiro wrongdoer is not deterred and the public policy of punitive damages is not served. Additioaally, the public policy is not served wbaro the insurance company, imtaad of the wrongdoer, pays the punitive damages because them it is the public, not the wroagdber, who is Punished. If the insuranza compare pays, it passes along the cost to the public, who uI1timateiy pays higher insurance premiums —,the wrongdoer has gone unscathed and undeterred. The procedural history of Beaver ism follows; Albert Beaver, 7r. obtaized a judgment of$30,400 fbr compensatory damages and $5,000 for punitive damages against nomas Mudge as the roault'of an automobile accident whareh it was allsged fast Mudge was intoxicated, Mudge was insured by Country Mutual Insuranoe Co, Country Mutual paid the$30,000compensatozy damages award, but refused to pay the punitive damages, contending that it was against public policy for insurance to cover such damages an41hat such damages were not coveted by the policy language itself, The trial court entered a Judgment fer $5,000 in Beaver's favor against Country Mutual in a ssquent garnfsliment&coon, 7 to Minrois Appellate Court, Fifth.District, reversed. It reaching ite decision,the aDpellato court reasone i as follows: 'phe function of punitive damages is similar to that of a criminal penalty, i,e, as a punishment to'the wrongdoer and as & means to deter such a ,AToagdoer and otaers from commL,- ng like offenses in the future, (420 N.E.2d at 1.059.) 10 gent rsy: 1FIYIHj 630 932 7378; 11 JJl'00 2:28RM;J•ol� 268;Fage 9-4 TT D GE 8c JAMES,LTD, ' ATTORNEYS AT LtiW Dan LeTourneau Turd 9, 1997 Page 5 7be appel'ats court continued: The argument that insurance against punitive dates would ccntravzne public policy is aometimea said to rest on the doctrine that'no one shall be permittad to take advantage of his own wrong.' That doctrine is not neewsadly applicable,to cases of automobile liability insurance,covering punitive damages. In such cases the public policy against coverage is not so much to prevent oacauragw=t of wrongdoing by obstructing the hODCR of nmi~ct; it•ie rather to mala effaadve 10 diScouragMV4 91 wrong-doing by the Imposition of punishment. 'Where a person is able to insure himself against punishment he gains a freedom of misconduct incondatent with tha establishment of sanotions against such misconduct It is not disputed that insurance against criminal fines or poan dea would be'vold as :violative of public policy. The same public policy should invalidate any contract of Imumuzo against fee civil pnmislanent that punitive damages repiesent. The pcllcy considerations in a state where punitive damages are awarded for punisarnent anal deterrence would seem to require that the damages rest ultimately as well as nominally on the party actually responsible for the wrong. If that parson were permitted tc shift the burden to an imurance compmy, punidvb damages would aerve no udful purpose. Sach damages do not compensate the plaintiff for his injury, sines compensatory damages already have=de tbeplaintifewbole. Andthere is no point in.purlsbiug the insurance company; it has done no wrong. la actual fact, of course, pd corsidering the extent to which the public is insured,the burden would ultimately come to zest rot on to Insurance ' companies but on the public, since the added lisbtltty to the kaurance pompsniea would be passed along to the pz=h-.npayers. Society would then be punishing Itself for the wzongs committed by the,Insured. (420 NX.2d at 1060.) The couxt in Beaver indicated its decision gas not inconsistent with Scott because Scott dealt with only the vicarious liability. However, as has been explained,pun-tive damages, at least is Maois, cannot be awarded on a vicarious liability, theory, 'The concl:asion one must draw is that punitive dameges era not coveted by insurance, It would violate public policy to allow such covezage. A.n insurance policy covers oily damages for bodily Nury and progcrty damaga, not punittva damages, 1i sent by: it-JAA; 630 932 7378; 1 ,!ul')Q 2:29P�.i;jab 258;Page 10!14 IUD GB&JADES, LTD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW Dan LeT:umsau June 9, 1997 pagy E bbli .Polis A�hi !b is A unisipali Yrom Belmig Liable Par Punilive D=zges Punitive damages rre "smart money" or exemplary damages &warded as €matter of public policy. They are not something a plaintiff is entitled to. They are awarded for two reasons: (1)to punish a defendant g0ty of extremely, anti-social cotiduet ac opprpsaiva or very reckless conduct;and(2)to set an example to othexs so they will not engage la Such conduct. If an award of punitive damages-cannot serve these two public policy reasons, then punitive damages cannot and should not be awarded. It carbo readily seen that punitive damages cannot be awarded against municipalldes because the public policy underlying punitive damages is not served by such aft award, If a municipality must pay punitive damages, the wrcngdae.-employee is not punished, Tde taxpayer is punished. The taxpay�c pays this award,tot the employee cr municipality. No example to others is 4et. In fact, the reverse is tzua. The employea aces that someone else, the taxpayer, not he, -will pay the punitive damages, The employoo•is not discouraged from such conduct. A plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages as a matte: of right. Punitive damages are a windfall to a plaintiff, Rubric policy ,^,o=ands that punitive damages be awarded Vnere a defendant's conduct is ao reprehensible as to be malicious, oppressive and w'JU. The purpose is to punish the defendant, not to reward the plaitatifP. The underlying reason for punitive damagea is the social policy of: (1) punishing the wrongdoer by imposing additional damages; and (2) setting an example to others to discourage similar reprehensible conduct. Hence,the purpose o:and reason for punitive damages '.s served only when the vongdoer pays money for kin wrongful conduct out of hie poet. If to:aeon,� ease pays ffa money for bl-n (hk =Ioya or insurer), he is not panisced and the purpose of pt,nitivo damages Is net served. Tho wrongdoer is not. punished. ' Additionally,if the wmugdo er daes not pay the pu:.tive c rages himsef,no example is set to disccttzage others. In fax, just tris opposite, If the wrong_cer's employer or k s=ee pays the punitive damages, It serves as an example to futura wrangdoars teat trey rTed not fcar paying putitive damages U any award Will be,paid for then.: 12 Sent by: inMA; 630 932 7378; 11 Jul'00 2:29PU;J:)b 268;Page 1i '14 JUDGE &JAMES, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT L&W Dan LgTburneau lune 9, 1997 ' Page,7 punitive. damages cannot be awarded against a Munioipal corporation. George Y. Chicago Ranslt A,A- ority,58 M. App. 3d 692, 374 N.B.2d 679 (1978); and Ory of Chicago v. Langkus, 52111. 256 It is clear that is Illinois,punitive damages are uotfavored. Punitive darnages are allowed within certain very nandw limits and granted only with great zou' on. Quad Co:mry Dlstr•iboWs Co.,Inc. V.Burroughs Corp., 68 M. App. 3d 163, 385 Id.E.24 1148 (1979). In George V. C ht=go 7Y=ItAurhorfry,58111.App,5d 692,374 X,B.2d 679 (1978),the appellate tour, held that the Chicago Tzansit Authority, as a municipal corporation, could not be liable fo: punitive damages: Finding that lliinols hes never p=Attad punitiva da=g%to be awarded against a m mlcipal. corporation,the appellate court in George stated; 4a finding the compensation the juryhas no right to give vindictive or pcmldive damages against a municipal corgoratiaa,' No reported decision In Illinois has deviated from this general rola. (374 N.B.2d at 680.) 'Ue reason for this rulo 13 best found by analysis of the purpose of punitive damages and the unique nature of a municipal corporadort, The court in George v. Chicago ?fansit AOxrity, 58 M. App, 3d 692,374 N.B.2d 679 (1.978), clearly and,concisely=ado this analysis in the following tams: The directiou the law has followed en this Subject is explained by tha nature of punitive damages and the chara wlstics of municipal corporations. The purpose of Punitive damages is to purish the defendant, to teach him not to repeat his intentlonai, deMerata aid outrageous conduct, and to deter others from sLmRar conduct. . . . TET burden of punitive damagea assessed agaimst a governmmtrl entity would be borne by its taMayers -- in the case of the G°I'A, b j taxpayers and fare,-paying passw*ers. 'These i9 uo justification for punishzug taxpayers or attempt ng to deter them from further misconduct eommttted by CTA employees over whom they would have no control. 'This is unlike shareholders of a privately-owned corporation who at least theoretically can change management which employs p tople who expose the corparatiou to punitivs damages. Taxpayers do not have the same degree of control over who manages the CTA. Therefore, in this case no societal Merest or public policy would be 8orved by awarding punitive damages against the CTA. To authalxe the levy of punitive damages against a public entity'would impose ar:unjust burden upon fne inaacant taxpayer wifaou.t liectly Punishing fine wrongdoer. Tlse Sent 8y: IRMA; 630 932 7378; ': 1 J,:1'30 2:30P'vl;J:)b 268;Paye 12!14 JUDGE M JAMES,LTD. ATTORNEYS Ar LAW Din LsTouruaeas xune 9, 1997 ' Page I punitivo pucposo would thus be frustrat5d.' Thus, under the common law of Illinois, as in many other states, the CTA is not subject to punitivo damages, (374 hT.B.2d at 58(?-81.} Punitive damages aro a windfall to a plaintiff. Plaintiff recovers punidve damages not because he deserves them or in aq way shoves entideramt to them. There La No Such Tull&&Zm11Tyerrs° •Vicgrtous Tlbgllity F=Zual&e BimaQes —9mp1ciera•Are Liable For Puniti4@ 12amaees OniX If 31gy Ratif ,Approye. Authorize Or Participate In The EnMplovC@'s Wrongful Coro duct Punitive damages my not be assessed against an employer under principles of respondeat superior. Ordinarily, an empleyw i$liable for the acts of its employees under the.doc tripe of respondent superior. However, such is not the case with pt nidve damages. An employer la liable for puuitive damages only where the employer ratifies or participates in the emplcyee's grievous misconduct. .&'olda v. County of Xnne, 88 Ill. App. 3d 522, 410 N.E.2d 552 (1980), Hance, a municipality, as*an emplopor, is xqt llablo for punitive damages of its employees unless the ofFima of the municipality participated in or ratified the wrongful conduct, Por punitive damages to bo awarded against a corporation,it is necessary that the corporationpaaticipate in'or ratify its employee'i conduct To plead a cause of action for punitive damages, for that matter for any cause of solos, is is naeessay to allege fact sufficient to support the theory pleaded. Mare • conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action. Bell Y. village of Midlothian, 90 M. App, 3d 967, 414 N.B.2d 104 (1980). The general rule in the regard has been stared by Justice Lindberg in the case of Holda v. Cowuy'Qf Rang, 188 Ill, App. 3d 522, 410'N.B.2d 552 (1984), where the rals was stated in these terms: However, it is settled that, where an employer's liablity is predicated solely upon a vicarious liability theory, the employer is not liable for punitive damages resulting fiom the w11L&1 anal wautonmiscondiict of the employee unless the employer approved, authorized, or ratified the act. (410 N.E,2d at 563.) There is rao re.,pondeat superior or vicarious liability of the employer for punitive damages caused by the, empioyee inUnols. Illinots follows tho so-called rompllcity rate which allows punitive damages against the eorporaroa only when the corporation orders, participates, or ratMes'the employee's conduct. 1ti'attyasoVADI V. West 2bwns Bus Co,, 61111.1id 31, 330 *t.E•.2d 309 (1975). Sent By: IRMA; 630 9:=2 7378; 1 Jul 00 2:31PM;Job 268;Page 13114 JUDGE &JAMES, LTD. ATCOKNZYs A'C LAW Dau LeTcurmeau =a 9, 1997 page 9 The Illinois Supreme Court in Mattyasovsky v. West Towrg Bus Co,, 611111 2d 31, 334 N•B.2d 509 (1975), awed the reason fot its dislike of punitive damages,against a corporation oa a re pnndeat superior theory; The objectives of an award of jrAtive damages axe the name as those whlch motivate the ptimbaal-law -- punishment and detecrants.. (330 N.E.2d at 511.) Moreo'er, the punitive and admonitory justification for the S npositioa of punitive damages are sharply dimiaiahed in those casea in which liability is imposed vicuioiWy., . ,with respect to tfiis problem, $211C of the Restatement (Second)of Agency states: Punitive damsgea can properly be awarded•agai-At a master or other principal because of an act of an agent if, but only if: (a) tho principal authorized a doing is the manner of the amt, or(b)the agent was unfit and the prh4sl was rvJdasa in employing him, or(c)the agent was employed is a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment,or (d)the principal ratified or approved the act. Serious questions inevitably arise in a case like the present, its which the driver of the bus, whose conduct was primarily responsible for the injury, is nA longer a party defendaot because he was dismissed by the plaintiff before the case want to the jury. (330 N.Ead at 512.) It is clear that the courts do not look favorably upon at:award of punitive damages in Illinois. It has been said that tha•eourts should mrciae a high degree of watchfuiaeas to prevent the doctrine of pumidve damages from being perverted and extended beyond the zeal,principles upon which it is based, Thomas Y. Rossetter,339 711. App. 647, 91 N.B,2d 155 (1960) (Abstral only), Hcpe`ully, t..ia expla don, although it is a bit more lengthy than Z would have desired, gives a pretty thorough Finalysis of tro gsestioa and leads to the ultimate conclusior,that it is very unlikely ;bat the ]llinois Supteme Court would approve the pi=hase of insrxanca eovetage to cover punitive daimgas for alleged vicari=Iiabilif3,of municipalities. 15 Sent By: TF(riA; 630 932 7378; 11 Jul 30 2:32PM;Job 268;Page 14;14 FUDGE&jA.N� a L'I'D, ATTORNEYS AT LAN - DsnLeTournaau dose 9, 1997 Page 10 HapduUy,these additional tho':ghts will provide a ft::ler explanation when ym discuss and present this issue before the Board. very mayYours, 3UDGB&7A'NOS, LTD. hs. ge ?SJl�as� 16 .