In a striking legal development, a plaintiff's attempt to sue an appraiser and his insurance company for alleged fraudulent conduct has been dismissed by the Illinois Appellate Court. Cynetria Watkins filed the complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County on September 13, 2024, against Patrick Maher and Aspen Insurance Company.
Watkins' lawsuit stemmed from her application for a home loan which was denied after Maher, the appraiser retained by her lender Guaranty Rate Affinity, allegedly inflated the property's value by $115,000. Watkins accused Maher of fraud, breach of professional duty, and negligence. Additionally, she claimed that Aspen Insurance Company aided and abetted Maher's fraudulent actions by insuring him despite knowing his purported history of fraudulent behavior.
Aspen moved to dismiss Watkins's aiding and abetting claim on two grounds: Illinois law prohibits direct actions for indemnity against an insurer before a judgment is rendered against the insured, and Watkins failed to properly plead an aiding and abetting fraud cause of action. The trial court granted Aspen’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. In another order, it also dismissed Watkins’s claims against Maher. Dissatisfied with these rulings, Watkins filed separate pro se notices of appeal which were consolidated.
Watkins argued that the trial court erred in dismissing her claim against Aspen because she believed the insurer was liable under several statutes including the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, Illinois Whistleblower Act, and Illinois Insurance Code. She also contended that her treatment as a pro se litigant violated federal rules of civil procedure and her constitutional right to due process.
However, upon review, Justice Hyman affirmed the trial court's decisions. The appellate court found that Watkins's complaint did not sufficiently state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud as it only alleged that Aspen insured Maher knowing he had engaged in fraudulent conduct—insufficient grounds for such a claim. Furthermore, Watkins forfeited her claims against Maher by failing to address them in her opening brief. The court also found no evidence supporting Watkins’s contention that her due process rights were violated.
The appellate court highlighted that while pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers under federal rules (as cited in Haines v. Kerner), this does not apply in state courts where pro se litigants must comply with the same rules as licensed attorneys. Despite this requirement, reasonable accommodations can be made to ensure fair hearings for pro se litigants; however, leniency cannot extend to overlooking fundamental deficiencies in stating a valid legal claim.
Ultimately, the appellate court upheld all previous orders dismissing Watkins's complaints against both defendants with prejudice.
Attorneys involved included those representing Aspen Insurance Company and Patrick Maher while Judge John J. Curry Jr., presided over the case under Case ID Nos. 1-24-0090 & 1-24-0769 (cons.).