Janus v. Tarasewicz

135 Ill. App. 3d 936, 482 N.E.2d 418 (1985)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Janus v. Tarasewicz

Illinois Appellate Court
135 Ill. App. 3d 936, 482 N.E.2d 418 (1985)

Play video

Facts

Newlyweds Stanley and Theresa Janus died after ingesting Tylenol laced with cyanide. Stanley could not be resuscitated, and he was pronounced dead at the hospital at 8:15 p.m. on September 29, 1982. Efforts to resuscitate Theresa resulted in unstable vital signs, and she was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) and put on a respirator. Theresa showed signs of spontaneous circulatory function. However, tests performed on September 30, 1982 suggested that Theresa had suffered brain death. Theresa was removed from life support and pronounced dead at 1:15 p.m. on October 1, 1982. Stanley had a $100,000 life insurance policy with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) (defendant). MLIC determined that Theresa survived Stanley and paid $100,000 to the administrator of Theresa’s estate, Jan Tarasewicz (defendant). Aljoza Janus (plaintiff) was the contingent beneficiary under Stanley’s life insurance policy, which was payable to Aljoza only if Theresa predeceased Stanley. Aljoza brought a declaratory action, claiming that she was entitled to the $100,000 policy because there was insufficient evidence that both Theresa and Stanley had not suffered brain death by the time they arrived at the hospital. In that case, Stanley’s life insurance policy would be payable to Aljoza under Illinois’s version of the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act (SDA). Aljoza claimed Theresa’s life support was maintained at her family’s request. At trial, medical experts disagreed about the time Theresa’s brain death occurred. The trial court found sufficient evidence that Theresa survived Stanley but did not specify by how long. Aljoza and the administrator of Stanley’s estate appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, 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 748,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 748,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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 748,000 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
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 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