Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

04/25/89 Norma Jankousky Et Al., v. Jewel Companies

April 25, 1989

NORMA JANKOUSKY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

v.

JEWEL COMPANIES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE (AMERICAN STORES COMPANY, DEFENDANT)



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION

538 N.E.2d 689, 182 Ill. App. 3d 763, 131 Ill. Dec. 314, 131 Ill. Dec. 689 1989.IL.595

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. John M. Breen, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court. HARTMAN and EGAN,* JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILANDIC

Plaintiffs' complaint seeks to establish a separate class of individuals to maintain an action to recover damages from defendants due to salmonellosis contracted from defendant Jewel's contaminated milk products. The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to a section 2-615 motion. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-615.) This appeal followed.

The complaint alleges the historical background of litigation against Jewel due to the salmonella outbreak in the Chicagoland area. On April 3, 1985, a class action was commenced in the circuit court of Cook County (by consolidation of existing cases) identified as In re Salmonella Litigation, civil action No. 85 -- L -- 000000. Plaintiffs in the case at bar were potential members of that consolidated action. During the period shortly after the class action commenced, but before a class was certified, Jewel contacted potential class members for the purpose of settling their claims. Jewel succeeded in its efforts to settle and obtain releases from many individuals.

This led individuals who settled to file a petition to intervene in the consolidated class action (No. 85 -- L -- 000000) as a subclass. That petition, identified as Albrecht v. Jewel, No. 85 -- L -- 16454, alleged that defendants fraudulently concealed information concerning the pendency of No. 85 -- L -- 000000 from plaintiffs when they settled their claims and executed releases. The settlements were completed prior to the certification of a class in the consolidated class action.

On October 15, 1986, the trial court allowed disabled persons and minors in Albrecht to participate in the consolidated class action (No. 85 -- L -- 000000) as members, not as intervenors. On October 23, 1986, the trial court found that the adult plaintiffs were not a proper class and could not intervene as a subclass in the consolidated class action because individual issues predominated over common issues.

The case before us was filed in January 1987. Plaintiffs are adults under no legal disability, who settled and executed releases prior to the certification of a class in the consolidated class action (No. 85 -- L -- 000000). Plaintiffs allege that defendants fraudulently concealed information concerning the pendency of the consolidated class action of which they were potential members. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Defendants assert that plaintiffs' complaint failed to set forth the elements of a class action. Defendants further alleged that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of class certification based on the court's decision in Albrecht.

On August 28, 1987, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' action for failure to plead the statutory requirements of a class action and also determined that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from maintaining the action based on the ruling in Albrecht. On August 31, 1987, plaintiffs' entire complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Thus, plaintiffs' class action and individual claims were dismissed. Plaintiffs did not ask leave to amend and chose to stand by their complaint. This appeal only involves the dismissal of count IV, which is based on fraud in the inducement. I

We will first consider whether the plaintiffs stated an individual cause of action. If we determine that an individual cause of action has been stated, then we must consider whether the plaintiffs can also maintain a cause of action for others similarly situated as their class representative in a class action.

Count IV of plaintiffs' complaint seeks to allege fraud in the inducement. The parties agree that the essential elements of an action based on fraud or misrepresentation are: (1) a false statement of material fact; (2) known or believed to be false by the party making it; (3) made with intent to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in justifiable reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) resulting damages. The reliance by the other party must be justified, i.e., he must have had a right to rely. (Salisbury v. Chapman Realty (1984), 124 Ill. App. 3d 1057, 1062, 465 N.E.2d 127.) Where a person has a duty to speak, his failure to disclose material information is equivalent to a fraudulent concealment. 124 Ill. App. 3d at 1063.

At issue are settlements made during a 3 1/2-month period, between April 3, 1985 (when the consolidated class action complaint, In re Salmonella, No. 85 -- L -- 000000, was filed), and July 25, 1985 (when a class was certified in that case). Plaintiffs in this case are Norma Jankousky, Daniel and Cindy Nagle, and Timothy Reed. Plaintiffs Daniel and Cindy Nagle and Timothy Reed were among the plaintiffs who filed the petition to intervene in the consolidated class action, Albrecht v. Jewel, No. 85 -- L -- 16454, alleging that defendants fraudulently concealed information concerning the pending class action (No. 85 -- L -- 000000) from plaintiffs when they executed settlements prior to class certification. Minors and adults under ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.