Supreme Court of Illinois Unanimously Agrees to Overturn Erroneous Decisions of the Trial and Appellate Courts Regarding a Litigant’s Right to Seek Statutory Costs

For Immediate Release: March 21, 2025

Contact: Craig M. Sandberg, 833.726.3237, craig@sandberglaw.com

Springfield, Illinois – “In Jordan v. Macedo, 2025 IL 130687, the plaintiff filed a negligence complaint in the circuit court alleging personal injuries from an automobile collision. The circuit court referred the case to the Cook County mandatory arbitration program where the arbitrator entered an award in favor of the plaintiff. Neither party rejected the award, and plaintiff submitted the award to the circuit court for entry of the judgment. Plaintiff also filed a motion for statutory costs and prejudgment interest. The circuit court denied the motion for costs and interest, explaining that the arbitration award contained the full amount of compensation to which plaintiff was entitled. The case then worked its way through the appellate process, ultimately reaching the Illinois Supreme Court.

At issue in the supreme court was the question of whether a trial court can grant a request for statutory costs after the parties resolve a dispute through a mandatory arbitration program. More specifically, the court considered whether the plaintiff was required to request statutory costs during the arbitration or if the plaintiff could request those costs after the trial court entered judgment on the arbitration award. (The Illinois Supreme Court did not address and thus left undisturbed the appellate court’s conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to request prejudgment interest.)

To answer this question, the court reviewed the applicable statutes and court rules. The court first looked at section 5-108 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows plaintiffs to recover statutory costs. The court explained that there was “no question” that section 5-108 applied to this case because the plaintiff filed a lawsuit and successfully recovered against the defendant. Thus, the only question was whether the plaintiff “waived her right to collect the statutory costs because she did not request them from an arbitrator.”

The court found the answer to this question in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 92(e), which states that the failure of an arbitration panel to address costs “shall not constitute a waiver of a party’s rights to recover costs upon entry of judgment.” The court explained that this language “expressly states” that a party may request statutory costs upon entry of judgment, even if those costs were not determined by the arbitrator. The defendant had argued that Rule 92(e) was inapplicable and that the “no-waiver rule” only applies where the party first submits a request for costs to the arbitrator, but where the arbitrator does not address that request, which did not occur here. The supreme court rejected this interpretation, explaining that it was inconsistent with the explicit language of the rule and would require the court to read language into the rule, which, of course, it declined to do.

The court next addressed whether the failure of the Cook County circuit court to adopt an amendment similar to Rule 92(e) in its local rules changed this analysis and found that it did not. The supreme court noted that Illinois Supreme Court Rule 86(c) allows each judicial circuit court to adopt local rules for the conduct of arbitration proceedings, but only if those local rules “are consistent with Illinois Supreme Court rules.”  As a result, the court explained that there was no valid reason to find Rule 92(e) inapplicable even though it was not explicitly codified within the local rules because “local rules must defer to Illinois Supreme Court rules.” 

The court then went on to summarize its holding and to provide guidance for future litigants, explaining that under the plain language of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 92(e), a request for statutory costs “can and should” be brought during an arbitration proceeding. However, if the costs are not addressed during those proceedings, the right to seek the costs is not waived and the prevailing party is entitled to seek statutory costs in the trial court upon entry of judgment on the arbitration award.

The unanimous opinion was written by Justice Cunningham.”

“Quick Takes on Illinois Supreme Court Opinions Issued Thursday, March 20, 2025” - Amelia Buragas, Illinois State University

WHAT: Jordan v. Macedo, 2025 IL 130687

WHO: Craig M. Sandberg represented the plaintiff-appellant, before the Supreme Court of Illinois

WHERE: Supreme Court of Illinois, 200 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701