PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Darius Robinson

Street Address

City, State  Zip

Phone Number (with area code)

Fax Number (If applicable)

Email Address (If applicable)

Plaintiff in pro per

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

NOW COMES Darius Robinson, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against John Knoll, Andrew Smolenski, GEICO Insurance, and Metro Collision Experts, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

1. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Darius Robinson is a law-abiding, male adult citizen of sound mind and a resident of [Insert Address].
2. Defendant John Knoll is a male adult citizen of sound mind and an insurance claims adjuster employed by GEICO Insurance.
3. Defendant Andrew Smolenski is a male adult citizen of sound mind and an employee of Metro Collision Experts.
4. Defendant GEICO Insurance is an insurance company registered and operating under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business at [Insert Address].
5. Defendant Metro Collision Experts is an automotive repair facility located at [Insert Address].

1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to Article VI, § 9 of the Illinois Constitution.
2. Venue is proper before this Court because the events and causes of action described herein took place within Cook County.

1. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Plaintiff was involved in a vehicle accident in November, 2022. His insurance company, GEICO Insurance, agreed to pay.
2. The adjuster from GEICO, John Knoll, recommended Defendant’s garage to Plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff’s vehicle, a [Model & Year of Manufacture], was taken to Metro’s garage in February 2023.
4. On June 7, 2023, Plaintiff visited Metro’s garage for the first time since he never received an update from anyone regarding his vehicle.
5. When Plaintiff saw his vehicle, it was placed in shambles and had been sitting for quite some time.
6. Plaintiff contacted Mr. Knoll to let him know that no progress had been made. He also informed Mr. Knoll that the glove compartment had been broken into, there was a filthy smell of smoke coming from inside the vehicle, and the service was horrible.
7. Plaintiff requested an itemized bill so that he could pay whatever he owed Metro and leave with his vehicle.
8. Metro declined to give Plaintiff an itemized bill and refused to give him back his vehicle, stating that repairs on the vehicle were not finished.
9. Plaintiff no longer wanted to use Metro’s services. He wrote them an email stating that he wanted to discontinue their services. Metro still refused to release Plaintiff’s vehicle.
10. Mr. Knoll and GEICO did not do anything to help Plaintiff recover his vehicle, yet they are the ones who recommended Metro and even took his vehicle to their garage to be repaired.
11. Plaintiff has been making monthly payments for the vehicle that is currently in the possession of Defendant Metro.
12. The inability to access and use the vehicle has caused significant financial strain on Plaintiff, as they continue to make payments for a vehicle they cannot utilize.
13. Due to the prolonged unavailability of their vehicle, Plaintiff was forced to purchase another vehicle to ensure their ability to commute to work and carry out daily responsibilities.
14. This unexpected and additional expense has further exacerbated the financial burden on Plaintiff.

1. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count 1: Breach of Contract against Defendant Metro

1. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein.
2. A valid and enforceable contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant Metro, albeit indirectly through the recommendation and arrangement facilitated by Defendant Mr. Knoll and Defendant GEICO.
3. Pursuant to the contract, Defendant Metro undertook the obligation to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle in a timely manner, with due care and in accordance with industry standards.
4. Defendant Metro breached the terms of the contract by:a) Failing to provide the agreed-upon repairs within a reasonable timeframe; b) Refusing to furnish an itemized bill as requested by Plaintiff; c) Withholding Plaintiff’s vehicle, despite Plaintiff’s demand for its release.
5. As a direct result of Defendant Metro’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer significant harm, including financial losses, loss of use of the vehicle, inconvenience, and emotional distress.
6. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the costs of repairs, replacement transportation expenses, rental vehicle expenses, storage fees, and any other out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of Defendant Metro’s breach.

Count 2: Negligence against Defendant Metro

1. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein.
2. Defendant Metro owed a duty of care to Plaintiff in repairing and safeguarding Plaintiff’s vehicle in a competent and diligent manner.
3. Defendant Metro breached their duty of care by: a) Failing to exercise reasonable care in performing the repairs, as evidenced by the shambles in which Plaintiff’s vehicle was found; b) Allowing the glove compartment to be broken into, causing further damage and compromising the security of Plaintiff’s vehicle; c) Failing to maintain proper storage and ventilation of the vehicle, resulting in the filthy smell of smoke.
4. Defendant Metro’s negligence directly caused harm to Plaintiff’s vehicle and resulted in Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction, inconvenience, and emotional distress.
5. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the diminished value of the vehicle, costs of repair or replacement, emotional distress, and any other damages deemed just and proper by the Court.

Count 2: Negligent Referral against Defendant Mr. Knoll

1. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein.
2. Defendant Mr. Knoll owed a duty of care to Plaintiff as an adjuster employed by Defendant GEICO to provide competent and diligent assistance in the handling of Plaintiff’s claim.
3. Defendant Mr. Knoll breached his duty of care by negligently recommending Defendant Metro’s garage, which failed to adequately repair and safeguard Plaintiff’s vehicle.
4. Defendant Mr. Knoll’s negligent referral directly caused harm to Plaintiff’s vehicle and contributed to Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction, inconvenience, and emotional distress.
5. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for the diminished value of the vehicle, costs of repair or replacement, emotional distress, and any other damages deemed just and proper by the Court.

Count 4: Vicarious Liability against Defendant GEICO

1. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth herein.
2. Defendant GEICO may be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee, Defendant Mr. Knoll, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
3. Defendant GEICO is responsible for the actions and omissions of Defendant Mr. Knoll, who negligently recommended Defendant Metro’s garage and failed to take appropriate action to assist Plaintiff in recovering their vehicle.
4. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages from Defendant GEICO for the harm caused by Defendant Mr. Knoll’s actions and omissions, including the costs of repair or replacement, emotional distress, and any other damages deemed just and proper by the Court.

1. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Metro, Mr. Knoll, and GEICO on the claims asserted herein;
2. Award compensatory damages to Plaintiff for the costs of repairs, replacement transportation expenses, rental vehicle expenses, storage fees, diminished value of the vehicle, and emotional distress in the sum of $__________;
3. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
4. Award attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this action;
5. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.

Dated this _____ day of June, 2023.

Respectfully Submitted,

________________________________________

Darius Robinson,

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )