Skip to main content

Adams v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau

Ill. App. Ct.February 18, 2016No. 3-15-0418
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action against insurance companies, holding that Illinois law prohibits direct actions against insurers and that section 12.80 of the Business Corporation Act barred the action because the original employer had been dissolved beyond the five-year statute of limitations.

What This Ruling Means

**Adams v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau** This case involved former employees who were wrongfully terminated from Sprinkmann Sons Corporation. After their employer went out of business, the workers tried to sue the company's insurance carriers directly to get compensation for their lost jobs. The workers argued they should be able to collect damages from the insurance companies since their original employer was no longer around to pay them. The Illinois appeals court ruled against the workers. The court found that Illinois law does not allow employees to sue insurance companies directly - they can only sue their actual employer. Additionally, the court noted that the original employer, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, had been dissolved for more than five years, which exceeded the legal time limit for bringing such claims under state business law. **What this means for workers:** If your employer goes out of business, you generally cannot pursue wrongful termination claims against their insurance companies. You must file any legal claims against your employer within specific time limits, and those time limits continue running even after a company dissolves. Workers who believe they were wrongfully terminated should act quickly and consult with employment attorneys about their options before their employer becomes unreachable or time limits expire.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Adams from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.