Skip to main content

Adams v. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau

Ill. App. Ct.February 26, 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Unpublished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
motion to dismiss

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, finding that section 12.80 of the Illinois Business Corporation Act barred the suit because the dissolved corporation could not be sued and the action constituted an impermissible direct action against insurers.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved workers who tried to sue an insurance company (Employers Insurance Company of Wausau) after their employer, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, was dissolved (went out of business). The workers wanted to pursue wrongful termination claims but couldn't sue the company directly since it no longer existed, so they attempted to sue the company's insurance provider instead. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court ruled against the workers and dismissed their case. The court found that Illinois state law (specifically section 12.80 of the Illinois Business Corporation Act) prevented this type of lawsuit. Since the corporation was dissolved, it could no longer be sued, and the workers couldn't bypass this rule by suing the insurance company directly instead of the employer. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling highlights an important limitation for workers seeking justice after wrongful termination. If your employer goes out of business or dissolves, you may lose your ability to pursue certain employment claims, even if the company had insurance that could potentially cover damages. Workers should be aware that corporate dissolution can create significant barriers to legal remedies, making it crucial to address workplace issues promptly while the company still exists.

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.