Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Widoff

683 N.E.2d 541 (1997)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Widoff

Illinois Appellate Court
683 N.E.2d 541 (1997)

  • Written by Jody Stuart, JD

Facts

Gerson Widoff (defendant) was the son of Rosemarie Widoff and the husband of Betty Widoff. Gerson, Rosemarie, Betty, and Valanna Widoff were traveling in a car that was struck by a car driven by Gary Sokoloski. Sokoloski and Rosemarie died in the accident. Gerson and Betty sustained serious personal injuries. Golden Rule Insurance Company (Golden) (plaintiff) insured Gerson and Betty. Pursuant to Gerson and Betty’s insurance policy, Golden paid $184,216 toward Gerson’s medical expenses and $48,012 toward Betty’s. Later, the injured parties entered into a settlement agreement with State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer of Sokoloski’s vehicle. Under the agreement, State Farm Insurance paid $1,000 each to Gerson, Betty, and Valanna, and $296,000 to Rosemarie’s estate. Gerson was the personal representative of Rosemarie’s estate. The beneficiaries of Rosemarie’s will were Gerson, Gerson’s brother, and a trust. Upon learning of the settlement agreement, Golden filed suit in trial court against Gerson, as the personal representative of Rosemarie’s estate, seeking to prohibit Gerson from distributing the funds that Rosemarie’s estate had received in the settlement. Golden alleged that (1) the insurance policy for Gerson and Betty provided that, in the case of a settlement with a tortfeasor, Gerson and Betty would have to reimburse Golden the lesser of either the amount paid by Golden or 50 percent of the settlement; (2) Gerson and Betty deliberately structured the settlement agreement to avoid reimbursing Golden; and (3) because Gerson was one of three beneficiaries to Rosemarie’s will, Gerson and Betty would receive the benefit of the $296,000 paid to Rosemarie’s estate and would avoid having to reimburse Golden. The trial court dismissed the action due to lack of jurisdiction. Golden appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Inglis, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership