(The Center Square) – Four years after two men – an Uber driver and a passenger – died in a car wreck on the Stevenson Expressway, a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the passenger’s widow against Uber was heard by the Illinois Supreme Court Tuesday.
Arguments made before the court did not relate to the wrongful death claim however. Instead, Justices considered arguments regarding the rideshare service’s terms of use.
Mark Geller, a 60-year-old Uber passenger, died in an automobile crash in April 2022. He and the driver were both killed when the driver lost control of the vehicle and crashed.
Following the accident, Gloria Sheridan Geller filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Uber, acting as the executor of her late-husband Mark’s estate.
At stake is whether Uber can move the case into private arbitration, a process companies often prefer to keep disputes out of public courtrooms and limit opportunities for appeal.
Uber argued Gloria accepted Uber’s terms of use on her own account, so her personal agreement prevents the estate she represents from a public lawsuit.
The Circuit Court of Cook County ruled in favor of the Geller Estate, which would have allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
Uber appealed the ruling, which was overturned based on the argument that Gloria brought the lawsuit personally, rather than the estate bringing the case.
Chuck Haskins, representing Geller, argued that the appellate court misunderstood how the Illinois Wrongful Death Act works. A wrongful death claim is brought on behalf of surviving relatives, raising questions of if Gloria’s own Uber agreement should have any effect on the case.
He also said the lower court violated the Federal Arbitration Act, which requires courts to enforce most arbitration agreements – by applying the clause without determining if it was valid to begin with.
“The trial court first found that Sheridan’s agreement did not have anything to do with this [lawsuit]. It called it irrelevant to this dispute because her terms deal with her use. Mark’s death dealt with his use,” Haskins said.
On Uber’s side, Clifford Berlow argued that the agreement between Sheridan and Uber is valid and should apply since she is personally in charge of the estate, even though her account was not involved in the issue the lawsuit stems from.
“We know from wrongful death law that she controls the claim. She gets to decide where to file it, who to retain as counsel to pursue it, and whether or not to settle. And so her position to this court is that she can do all of those things but is not legally empowered to enter into an agreement to arbitrate,” Berlow said.
Justices questioned Berlow’s view of the case just a few seconds after he began speaking.
Berlow asserted that the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over any state law that would prohibit an agreement. In his view, Geller’s control over the claim means her personal contract with the company would dictate the forum to settle the case.
“My position is that if she sues Uber, then the question of who decides arises and the decision maker will be the arbitrator,” Berlow said. “There is a remedy for her if she disagrees with that ruling from the arbitrator.”
Haskins warned if the court sides with Uber, companies could use terms of service agreements to push families into lengthy arbitration processes before they get the chance to reach a courtroom.
The Court’s decision in the case is expected to come down late next month.
