Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Dec. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 18, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge Nos. 05-2038 & 05-2416 MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02 C 4121 HYUN KIM, TERRY JENNINGS, EARL H. JENNINGS, and ILLINOIS G. Patrick Murphy, INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Judge. Defen
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 18, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge Nos. 05-2038 & 05-2416 MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02 C 4121 HYUN KIM, TERRY JENNINGS, EARL H. JENNINGS, and ILLINOIS G. Patrick Murphy, INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Judge. Defend..
More
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 18, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge Nos. 05-2038 & 05-2416 MEDICAL PROTECTIVE COMPANY, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. v. No. 02 C 4121 HYUN KIM, TERRY JENNINGS, EARL H. JENNINGS, and ILLINOIS G. Patrick Murphy, INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Judge. Defendants-Appellees. ORDER Medical Protective Company (“MedPro”) has petitioned for panel rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying our remand instructions regarding the district court’s order awarding damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/155. In our November 13, 2007 opinion, we vacated the district court’s order awarding penalties pursuant to section 5/155, but our remand instructions referred only to the award of costs and attorney’s fees under the statute. But our holding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing penalties under section 5/155 necessarily means the district court’s award of statutory damages (as well as costs and attorney’s fees) is vacated. Accordingly, the final paragraph of the opinion is amended to read: For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, with the exception of the award of damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under section 5/155; we VACATE that aspect of the judgment and remand for entry of an amended judgment consistent with this opinion.