Background
Nancy Becker-Othman was injured in a car accident and required shoulder surgery. The at-fault driver tendered her policy limits, and Becker-Othman then sought the balance of her damages through her underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from State Farm. The claim proceeded to litigation, where disputes arose over discovery obligations and deposition logistics.
Becker-Othman challenged the trial court’s handling of discovery matters and the assessment of expert deposition fees. Specifically, she contested the requirement that she pay the deposition fee for a physician retained by State Farm, arguing the fee should be borne by State Farm as the retaining party.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed. On the deposition fee issue, the court applied Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204, which provides that unless a physician was retained by a party “for the purpose of rendering an opinion at trial,” the fee for the deposition shall be paid by the party who noticed it. Because State Farm did not intend the physician to offer opinions at trial, and Becker-Othman noticed the deposition, the trial court acted within its discretion in requiring Becker-Othman to pay the fee.
The court also rejected Becker-Othman’s challenges to the trial court’s other discovery rulings, finding no abuse of discretion in how the court managed the litigation.
Key Takeaways
- Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 204, the party noticing a physician’s deposition must pay the fee unless the physician was specifically retained to render trial opinions by the other side.
- A consulting physician retained by an insurer solely for claims evaluation purposes — not to testify at trial — is not “retained for the purpose of rendering an opinion at trial” under Rule 204.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in managing UIM litigation discovery, and appellate courts will not disturb these decisions absent clear abuse.
Why It Matters
This opinion clarifies the allocation of expert deposition costs in insurance litigation under Rule 204. For plaintiffs’ attorneys pursuing UIM claims, the decision means that deposing an insurer’s claims-evaluation physician will typically require the plaintiff to bear the deposition fee. Insurance defense counsel can rely on this case when defending against fee-shifting arguments. The distinction between trial experts and claims consultants is key — practitioners should carefully evaluate whether a physician’s role crosses the line into intended trial testimony before asserting fee-shifting rights.