Case BriefEvidence, Unit 3 1/15/15Identity of CaseKorch v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America. 67 N.E.2d 298 (Ill. App. 1946)Page 21 of the casebookSummary of Facts /Procedural HistoryKorch had and MVA with another driver, who died. He had casualty insurance. The day after the accident, he reported the incident to his insurance. He promptly forwarded them all negotiations sent to him from the other driver’s attorneys. While his wife was sick and he wasn’t home, he was served by the other driver for a lawsuit. He didn’t personally get the service until 2 days before answer was due. He actually believed trial was scheduled for that day. Attempted to call insurance co, whoever answered identified as insurance co, and reassured him that they would take care of it, and took his name and policy number. Meanwhile, his trial went undefended and garnishment proceedings against the insurance company began. Ins. co. sued Korch, he introduced evidence of the phone call as a waiver of the requirement that he forward them the petition, they objected and appealed based on improper authentication of the phone call. AC affirms judgment for Korch. Statement of the IssueIs a phone call to a business properly authenticated when (without other concerns of credibility), answeror identified as the company, took callers name and insurance policy number, and otherwise behaved as though they were members of the company? Holding /ReasoningYes. By virtue of it being a business with multiple people answering the phones, this is sufficient evidence. Evaluation No record of the call as he called from a pay
View Full Document
Unlocking...