## Facts

- McCrone Group, Inc. owned an older but operational electron microscope and planned to transfer it for resale through the manufacturer.
- The manufacturer contacted a mover, which retained All Chicagoland Moving and Storage Company to pick up the microscope, deliver it to Chicagoland’s warehouse, and hold it pending further instructions.
- Chicagoland prepared a bill of lading listing its warehouse as the shipment’s final destination and used an independent contractor to transport the microscope to the warehouse without incident.
- While repackaging the microscope in Chicagoland’s warehouse, Chicagoland’s warehouse manager dropped and damaged it.
- Wausau Insurance Company paid McCrone under an insurance policy and sued Chicagoland as McCrone’s subrogee, alleging negligence and breach of a bailment agreement.
- The circuit court entered summary judgment for Wausau and awarded $90,500 in damages; Chicagoland appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Wausau established bailment-based liability as a matter of law for damage occurring while the microscope was in Chicagoland’s exclusive possession, warranting summary judgment.
2. Whether the record supported fixing $90,500 in damages on summary judgment, or whether valuation presented material factual disputes.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Wausau on liability.
- The court held that Wausau’s showing of delivery and damage in Chicagoland’s custody created a presumption of negligence, and Chicagoland failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on due care.
- The appellate court reversed the $90,500 damages award and remanded for a new determination of damages because the evidence did not conclusively establish the microscope’s value and resulting loss.

## Legal Principles

- In a bailment claim, proof that property was delivered to the bailee in good condition and was returned damaged (or not returned) creates a prima facie case and a rebuttable presumption of the bailee’s negligence.
- Once the presumption arises, the bailee must come forward with evidence of due care or a non-negligent cause; conclusory assertions of careful handling are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is proper only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Damages for injury to personal property generally turn on diminution in fair market value (or reasonable repair cost when appropriate); when market value and loss are fact-dependent and disputed, damages should not be fixed on summary judgment.
- Factual statements in pleadings may operate as binding judicial admissions against the pleader.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held Chicagoland liable as a bailee because the undisputed damage occurred in its exclusive custody and it failed to rebut the presumption of negligence, but it required further proceedings to determine damages due to unresolved factual questions about the microscope’s value and Wausau’s loss.


Wausau Ins. Co. v. All Chicagoland Moving & Storage Co., 333 Ill. App. 3d 1116, 777 N.E.2d 1062 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)