Illinois Prejudgment Interest Update: Fourth District Calls On Illinois Supreme Court To Overturn The Enrolled Bill Doctrine

• Published date: 27 July 2023
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Court Procedure
• Law Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
• Author: Ms Melissa Murphy-Petros

Wilson Elser has reported extensively on the passage of the Illinois prejudgment interest statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-1303(c).* The statute took effect on July 1, 2021, and was quickly challenged on constitutional grounds.

As we last reported, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District in Cotton v. Coccaro, 2023 IL App (1st) 220788, held that the prejudgment interest statute is constitutional. Since then, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth Judicial District also weighed in. In First Midwest Bank v. Rossi, 2023 IL App (4th) 220643, the Fourth District held that the prejudgment interest statute is constitutional in that it does not violate either the defendant's right to a jury trial or the defendant's due process rights. These holdings are consistent with the First District's decision in Cotton.

The Fourth District also observed that the bill passed in violation of the three-reading rule of the Illinois Constitution, which would render the statute unconstitutional but for the Illinois Supreme Court adoption of the enrolled bill doctrine. The Fourth District then called upon the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider and reject the enrolled bill doctrine.

First Midwest Bank v. Rossi
In First Midwest Bank, plaintiff First Midwest Bank, as administrator of the Estate of Cynthia Overstreet, filed suit for medical malpractice, alleging that the defendant bariatric surgeon did not timely diagnose and treat Overstreet's complications from the gastric bypass surgery he performed, leading to her death. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $7,745,400. On post-trial motions, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest under the new statute.

On appeal to the Fourth District, the defendant contested the award of prejudgment interest on the ground that the prejudgment interest statute is unconstitutional. Although the Fourth District did not cite the First District's decision in Cotton, it reached the same conclusion - that the statute is constitutional in that it did not violate the defendant's right to a jury trial or the defendant's due process rights. The Fourth District found, however, that the statute is unconstitutional because it was passed in violation of the Illinois Constitution's three-reading rule.

The three-reading rule of the Illinois Constitution states as follows:

(d) A bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house. A bill and each...