Chicago Accident Lawyer Blog

In 2006 Jose Alvarado promised Cesar Gamboa, Ruben Nava, and Mauro Lopez, who were unlawfully in this country, that for $15,000 apiece, he could get them United States citizenship papers. Alvarado promised that he could deliver “authentic citizenship documents” for them through a contact at the US Consulate office in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. He told them that he had contacts that could influence the immigration authorities to expedite the application process but would need to pay employees in the different departments to obtain the necessary releases. Alvarado stated that he and his brother were obtaining their citizenship documents through the contact and invited Gamboa, Nava, and Lopez to join the group. The latter agreed and began paying in installments to Alvarado. Alvarado issued them receipts for the payments through his business, Marco’s Digital Video and Photography, Inc., to prove that the payments were legitimate. They say that Alvarado used “high-pressure tactics” to get the payments, calling them weekly until they had paid in full.

Once he received the money, however, Alvarado became less communicative. He did not deliver the promised “authentic citizenship documents” but delivered various excuses. In March 2009, he told the group that they were all swindled by the Mexican contact. Alvarado asked the group to contribute additional $200 each to hire a Mexican lawyer to pursue restitution from the swindler in Mexico. These additional payments did not fare any better than the first payments. Soon Alvarado informed the group that the legal challenge was not an option but proposed a new strategy. The new plan was to hire thugs in Mexico to kidnap the swindler and to get their money back. If the swindler would not return the money, the thugs would kill him. However, in October 2009, Alvarado told the group that the kidnapping plan was also on hold.

The thug-and-kidnapping plan having failed, Gamboa, Nava, and Lopez decided to try their luck with the Circuit Court of Cook County. They filed a lawsuit against Alvarado and his business for fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants were illegal and could not be enforced by the court. The plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court reversed.

The appellate court noted that plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendants engaged in numerous instances of unfair and deceptive practices in the conduct of trade or commerce in violation of the section of the Consumer Fraud, which governs private providers of immigration assistance services. The appellate court noted that there was no question that the verbal contract between defendants and plaintiffs was illegal and involved a “scheme” wherein the five members of the group agreed to obtain their citizenship documents “by circumventing the normal, legal process that the public follows in obtaining such documents” such as by paying bribes and paying off government officials in violation of assorted criminal codes. The appellate court agreed that the courts would not enforce an illegal contract.

However, the appellate court noted, the plaintiffs were not seeking to enforce the contract. What they were seeking with the lawsuit was to get their money back from the defendants on the basis of the fraudulent contract, costs they incurred as a result of the contract and assorted punitive damages including those provided for by the Consumer Fraud Act. The appellate court noted:

We do not find, notwithstanding defendants’ argument to the contrary, that allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claims would be tantamount to allowing them to enforce an illegal contact. Plaintiffs seek compensation for defendants’ actions in violating the Consumer Fraud Act and in misleading them, in promising something they had no ability or intent to deliver with full knowledge that plaintiffs would be harmed financially and emotionally by their actions. We do not find that allowing plaintiffs’ case to proceed would, as defendants assert, give “the parties’ meeting of the minds legitimacy.” Nor do we find that it will “send a message to those who lawfully engage in the process of obtaining immigration papers that if you do not accomplish your goal legally and through proper channels, then it is okay to do it by illegal means such as bribery and paying off corrupt officials within a government.” On the contrary, allowing plaintiffs’ claims to proceed will send a message to those unscrupulous individuals who mislead and prey on others by promising them immigration services they cannot deliver that there are ramifications for this antisocial behavior. These individuals cannot be allowed to use the very illegality of their agreement as a way to avoid the consequences of their actions.

You can read the entire court’s decision here.

If you have been victim of a fraud and have suffered injuries, contact the Chicago attorneys Zneimer & Zneimer p.c. for advice.

In a consolidated case that involved six drivers that drove cars that were insured by Founders Insurance or Safeway Insurance, the issue was whether Founders and Safeway should pay for injuries caused by a driver that drove the car without a license. Founders and Safeway argued that they did not have to pay because their policy excluded drivers who do not have a drivers license. Five of the drivers had no license, while the sixth driver had a suspended license.

The Founders insurance policy had several exclusions to its liability coverage. One of the exclusion stated that coverage does not apply “to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use by any person of a vehicle without a reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so." Founders argued that a person without a drivers license or a person with a suspended drivers license cannot have a reasonable belief that they are entitled to use the vehicle.

The Safeway insurance policy had a similar exclusion. The policy excluded any person "operating an automobile without a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to do so.”

In the case of Founders Ins. Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill.2d 424 (2010), the Illinois Supreme Court agreed. The Court stated "The policy provision at issue here precludes liability coverage when the person using or operating the vehicle does not have a “reasonable belief” that he or she is “entitled” to do so. Based on this language, Founders and Safeway argue that a person who has not been issued a driver’s license, or whose license has been suspended or revoked, cannot have a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to drive merely because he or she owns the vehicle or was granted permission to use the vehicle..."

***
The court began with the language of the policy and, in particular, the word “entitled." The court looked up the word in a dictionary for its plain meaning and noted,

"Under both policies, an “insured person” includes the named insured and any person using the owned vehicle with the permission of the named insured. As Founders and Safeway note, unless the person qualifies as an “insured person,” the coverage exclusions never come into play because the person is not covered by the policy in the first instance. This means that the term “entitled,” as used in the subject exclusion, cannot refer to entitlement based on permission or ownership because the issue of whether the person using the vehicle has a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to do so only arises after issues of permission or ownership have been satisfied."

"The question remains whether the “average, ordinary, normal, reasonable person” for whom these policies were written ... would understand that the exclusion applies to unlicensed drivers. We agree with Founders and Safeway that the answer is “yes.” Illinois law with respect to driving privileges is clear. With limited exceptions not relevant here, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in this state unless such person has a “valid license.” 625 ILCS 5/6-101(a), (b) (West 2008). A person driving on a revoked or suspended license is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 625 ILCS 5/6-303(a) (West 2008). Irrespective of whether a person owns the vehicle, or is a permissive user, without a valid license, a person cannot have a reasonable belief that he or she is entitled to drive in this state. Without a valid license, a person has not been given the “right” to drive; has not been “qualified” to drive; has not been “furnished with proper grounds” for doing so..... Accordingly, each of the six drivers at issue here, who either never obtained a license or whose license was suspended, could not, as a matter of law, have a reasonable belief that he was entitled to drive simply because he owned the car or was given the keys."
***

The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court will leave many accident victims without compensation for their injuries, if the driver that caused the accident had no license or had a suspended license and had an insurance with a similar exclusion. There are insurance companies that sell insurance policies to persons who do not have drivers license. It is essential to review the provisions of your policy for any exclusions to protect yourself and others on the road.

While we do not dispute the Illinois Supreme Court's observation that a person without a license is violating the law by driving, the reality is that many people drive without a license because they are undocumented This decision will leave taxpayers to pick up the tab for medical expenses for injured victims. We urge the legislators to act to prevent this from happening.

A new law amends Section 625 ILCS 5/3-707 of the Illinois Vehicle Code making it a misdemeanor to injure someone while driving without insurance. Violators could spend up to a year in jail or face a $2,500 fine.

The amendment reads as follows:

625 ILCS 5/3-707
(a-5) A person commits the offense of operation of uninsured motor vehicle causing bodily harm when the person:
(1) operates a motor vehicle in violation of Section 7-601 of this Code; and
(2) causes, as a proximate result of the person's operation of the motor vehicle, bodily harm to another person.
(a-6) Uninsured operation of a motor vehicle under subsection (a-5) is a Class A misdemeanor.

This law will have especially serious consequences for undocumented aliens who drive without license or liability insurance. The law will also have serious consequences even for aliens who are lawfully in the United States in a valid nonimmigrant status since the commission of any crime is considered a violation of nonimmigrant status under the immigration law, which will make an alien removable from the United States for violation of status.

According to Chicago Public Radio, Illinois democrats are pushing Obama for a new comprehensive immigration bill this year. Obama promised this in June and now seven Illinois congressmen are putting pressure on the president to follow through. These seven democrats are trying to lay a path to citizenship for the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants.

The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), states that one out of every eight Americans is an immigrant and that nearly one of every seven Illinoisans is an immigrant. In Chicago alone immigrants make up one in five residents. Mexico accounts for 40.9% of all Illinois immigrants while Poland ranks second with 10% of immigrants.

The immigrant population in the U.S. has doubled from 1990 to 2006 while the foreign-born population in Illinois alone is up 86% from 1990 to 2006. Also many recent immigrants are now moving directly to the suburbs rather than into the city of Chicago. Estimates say that 550,000 undocumented immigrants live in Illinois. This number is up 110,000 from the year 2000.

It was recently reported in the Chicago Tribune that two nuns from the Sisters of Mercy are focusing their efforts on assisting jailed immigrants in Chicagoland. The sisters support passage of a comprehensive immigration reform plan for legislation that would 'fix a broken system'. They have supported immigration reform by marching at rallies, lobbying in Springfield and speaking at news conferences.

The sisters are an example to all of us. We should all be supportive of Immigration Reform. As evidenced by the numbers of immigrants in our nation it is foolish to ignore this issue. We all have a neighbor or a friend or a co-worker who is an immigrant.