Can AI Brief an Appellate Opinion Accurately?

Unedited response · Download run 1 text ↓

## Citation

Geller v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2026 IL 132066 (Ill. Sept. 24, 2026). Sheridan appealed as independent administrator of Mark Geller’s estate. (¶¶ 1–3.)

## Material facts

On April 19, 2022, Mark requested an Uber ride. His driver, Ejaz Rathore, lost control on an expressway; the crash fatally injured both men. Sheridan, Mark’s spouse and estate administrator, sued Uber Technologies, Inc., its subsidiary Rasier, LLC, and Rathore, alleging driver negligence, Uber’s vicarious liability, negligence through res ipsa loquitur, survival claims, and wrongful death claims for Mark’s statutory next of kin. (¶¶ 1, 6.)

Mark and Sheridan individually accepted separate Uber agreements. Sheridan’s agreement covered disputes connected to her own use, access, and relationship with Uber, including third-party claims related to her use. It delegated threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator and incorporated AAA rules. (¶¶ 8–9, 42–43.)

## Procedural history

Uber sought dismissal or, alternatively, a stay and an order compelling arbitration. The circuit court compelled arbitration of survival claims under Mark’s agreement, denied arbitration of wrongful death claims, and stayed those claims pending survival arbitration. The estate then voluntarily dismissed its survival actions. (¶¶ 7, 10.)

Uber took an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court found Sheridan’s agreement neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable and concluded its delegation clause required the arbitrator to decide whether wrongful death claims were arbitrable. It reversed and remanded; the Illinois Supreme Court allowed the estate’s appeal and reviewed the circuit court’s denial de novo. (¶¶ 11, 13–16, 20.)

## Issues

Did Sheridan clearly and unmistakably agree to delegate arbitrability of wrongful death claims arising from Mark’s Uber use? If not, did her agreement require arbitration of the underlying wrongful death dispute? (¶ 29.)

## Holding and reasoning

No on both questions. The court first had to decide whether the parties consented to delegate this dispute; absent that consent, the court also decided that the wrongful death claims were not subject to arbitration. (¶¶ 29, 70, 72–74.)

Sheridan occupied three distinct capacities: individual Uber user, wrongful death beneficiary, and estate personal representative. As representative, she was a nominal plaintiff acting for the spouse and any other next of kin, the true beneficiaries. Wrongful death creates a claim accruing at death for beneficiaries’ losses; survival preserves claims already accrued to the decedent. Wrongful death recoveries are not estate assets subject to restriction through Mark’s arbitration agreement. (¶¶ 24–28.)

Delegation is itself an antecedent arbitration agreement. Courts require clear and unmistakable evidence of consent to delegate arbitrability and resolve disputes over formation before enforcing delegation. Sheridan’s delegation language and AAA incorporation did not establish consent concerning another person’s use: read in context, the agreement repeatedly tied arbitration to her own services and contractual relationship. (¶¶ 35–44.)

FAA section 2 reinforced that contractual connection because the wrongful death dispute arose exclusively from Mark’s separate use. Henry Schein bars a court from rejecting an agreed delegation merely because arbitration seems wholly groundless; it preserves the antecedent judicial inquiry into whether delegation was agreed. The court read New Prime and Coinbase as likewise requiring foundational judicial examination of statutory authority and the parties’ actual agreement. (¶¶ 47–49, 54–60, 62–63.)

For underlying arbitration, Sheridan did not agree in her beneficiary or representative capacity to arbitrate claims arising from Mark’s use, was a nonsignatory to his agreement, and had no corresponding commitment in her individual agreement. Uber therefore failed to establish consent to arbitrate the wrongful death dispute itself. (¶¶ 73–74.)

## Disposition and limits

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment, affirmed the circuit court, and remanded. Wrongful death proceedings may resume in circuit court; survival counts remain voluntarily dismissed. The court expressly declined procedural and substantive unconscionability arguments. (¶¶ 74, 76–79.)

The decision rests on Sheridan’s agreement and these claims’ source. The court acknowledged a fine line between delegation scope and consent, and inconsistent decisions. Wrongful death liability remains for further proceedings. (¶¶ 67, 76.)

Started (UTC)

2026-10-04T03:59:02Z

Completed (UTC)

2026-10-04T04:01:03Z

Unedited response · Download run 2 text ↓

## Citation

*Geller v. Uber Technologies, Inc.*, 2026 IL 132066 (Ill. Sept. 24, 2026).

## Material facts

On April 19, 2022, Mark Geller requested an Uber ride. Driver Ejaz Rathore lost control on an expressway; the resulting crash fatally injured both men. Gloria Sheridan Geller (Sheridan), Mark’s widow and independent estate administrator, sued Rathore and Uber Technologies, Inc., together with its subsidiary Rasier, LLC (collectively, Uber), alleging driver negligence, Uber’s vicarious liability, negligence through res ipsa loquitur, survival claims, and wrongful death claims for Mark’s statutory next of kin. (¶¶ 1, 6.)

Mark and Sheridan separately accepted Uber agreements containing arbitration provisions. Sheridan’s agreement covered disputes involving her access, use, or relationship with Uber, including third-party claims related to her use; it also assigned threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. (¶¶ 8–9.) Sheridan appeared in three distinct capacities: individual Uber user, wrongful death beneficiary, and estate representative suing nominally for beneficiaries. (¶¶ 24–25.)

## Procedural history

The Cook County circuit court compelled arbitration of survival claims under Mark’s agreement, denied arbitration of wrongful death claims under Sheridan’s agreement, and stayed the latter pending survival arbitration. The estate then voluntarily dismissed the survival claims. (¶ 10.)

Uber took an interlocutory appeal. The First District reversed, rejecting procedural and substantive unconscionability challenges and holding that Sheridan’s delegation clause required an arbitrator to decide wrongful death arbitrability. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the estate’s appeal and reviewed the arbitration denial de novo. (¶¶ 11, 15–16, 20.)

## Issues

Did Sheridan clearly and unmistakably agree to delegate arbitrability of wrongful death claims arising from Mark’s Uber use? If delegation failed, did her agreement require arbitration of the underlying wrongful death dispute? The estate also challenged the appellate court’s treatment of beneficiary ownership and unconscionability. (¶¶ 18, 29.)

## Holding and reasoning

Both arbitration questions were answered negatively: the court must decide arbitrability, and these wrongful death claims are not arbitrable. (¶¶ 29, 70, 72–74.)

Wrongful death creates a cause of action accruing at death for beneficiaries’ losses; survival preserves claims already accrued to the decedent for his injuries before death. Wrongful death recovery belongs to beneficiaries, not the decedent’s estate, so Mark’s agreement could constrain survival claims without constraining wrongful death claims. Sheridan’s representative status did not merge these distinct interests or her contractual capacities. (¶¶ 24–28.)

Delegation is itself an antecedent arbitration agreement. Courts must first determine whether parties clearly and unmistakably consented to delegate the particular arbitrability dispute; ordinary contractual consent remains essential. Sheridan’s delegation language and incorporated AAA rules did not overcome contractual language repeatedly tying arbitration to her own Uber use. The wrongful death dispute arose solely from Mark’s use. (¶¶ 35–36, 38–45.)

FAA section 2 reinforced that conclusion by requiring a controversy arising from the relevant contract or transaction; Mark’s distinct use failed that threshold for Sheridan’s agreement. (¶¶ 47–49.) *Henry Schein* prohibits courts from disregarding an established delegation because arbitration appears wholly groundless. This decision instead resolved antecedent consent. *New Prime* preserves judicial examination of FAA authority, and *Coinbase* requires courts first to determine the governing agreement. (¶¶ 52, 54–60, 62–63.)

After resolving delegation, the court separately rejected arbitration of the underlying claims. Sheridan did not sign Mark’s agreement, and her own agreement signaled no consent, as beneficiary or representative, to arbitrate wrongful death arising from another person’s use. Uber established neither beneficiary nor estate consent. (¶¶ 72–74.)

## Disposition and limits

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment, affirmed the circuit court, and remanded. Wrongful death proceedings may resume; survival counts remain voluntarily dismissed. (¶¶ 76–79.) It expressly declined to reach procedural or substantive unconscionability. (¶ 74.) Its holding rests on this agreement and these distinct uses and capacities; the court acknowledged a fine distinction between delegation scope and consent, and inconsistent decisions elsewhere. (¶¶ 67, 76.)

Started (UTC)

2026-10-04T03:59:28Z

Completed (UTC)

2026-10-04T04:00:59Z

Unedited response · Download run 3 text ↓

## Citation

*Geller v. Uber Technologies, Inc.*, 2026 IL 132066, Illinois Supreme Court, opinion filed September 24, 2026 (caption; ¶¶ 1–3).

## Material facts

On April 19, 2022, Mark Geller requested an Uber ride. Driver Ejaz Rathore lost control on an expressway; the crash fatally injured both men. The complaint alleged Rathore’s negligence and Uber’s vicarious liability, asserting survival and wrongful death claims and negligence through res ipsa loquitur. Defendants included Uber Technologies, Inc., its subsidiary Rasier, LLC, collectively termed Uber, and Rathore (¶¶ 1, 6).

Gloria Sheridan Geller, Mark’s spouse, acted as independent administrator and wrongful death beneficiary. These capacities differed from her capacity as an individual Uber user. As personal representative, she was the nominal plaintiff pursuing wrongful death claims for statutory beneficiaries, including herself and any other next of kin (¶¶ 24–25).

Mark and Sheridan separately accepted Uber agreements containing arbitration provisions. Sheridan’s agreement addressed her own use, access, and relationship with Uber; third-party claims were covered when related to her use. It also assigned threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator and incorporated AAA rules and the FAA (¶¶ 8–9, 42–43).

## Procedural history

The estate filed its nine-count, third-amended complaint in Cook County on February 21, 2023. Uber moved to dismiss or alternatively stay proceedings and compel arbitration (¶¶ 6–7).

The circuit court compelled arbitration of survival claims under Mark’s agreement, denied arbitration of wrongful death claims, and initially stayed those claims pending survival arbitration. It then granted the estate’s voluntary dismissal of the survival actions (¶ 10).

Uber appealed interlocutorily. The appellate court rejected procedural and substantive unconscionability challenges and held that Sheridan’s delegation clause required an arbitrator to determine whether the wrongful death claims were arbitrable. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the estate’s appeal and reviewed the circuit court’s denial de novo (¶¶ 11, 15–16, 20).

## Issues

Did Sheridan clearly and unmistakably agree to delegate arbitrability of wrongful death claims arising from Mark’s Uber use? If she did not, did her agreement nevertheless require arbitration of the underlying wrongful death dispute (¶ 29)?

## Holding and reasoning

The court answered both questions no. Wrongful death creates a claim accruing at death for beneficiaries’ losses; survival preserves claims accruing to the decedent before death. Wrongful death recovery is not an asset of the decedent’s estate subject to limitation through his arbitration agreement. Mark’s agreement therefore did not govern these wrongful death claims (¶¶ 26–29).

Delegation is itself an agreement requiring consent. Courts must first determine whether clear and unmistakable evidence establishes agreement to delegate the particular arbitrability dispute; ordinary contract-formation principles govern that inquiry (¶¶ 35–41). Sheridan’s delegation clause, read within the arbitration section, remained tied to her own use. Neither broad delegation language nor incorporation of AAA rules established her consent, as beneficiary or representative, to delegate claims arising solely from Mark’s use (¶¶ 42–45, 63).

FAA section 2 reinforced that contractual connection: these claims arose from Mark’s distinct transaction, leaving the statutory foundation for enforcing Sheridan’s delegation unmet (¶¶ 47–49). *Henry Schein* bars a “wholly groundless” exception after valid delegation, but preserves the antecedent judicial inquiry into consent. The court resolved that inquiry rather than weighing an arbitration argument after established delegation (¶¶ 54–60, 62).

The court then decided underlying arbitrability. Sheridan was not a signatory to Mark’s agreement, and her individual agreement expressed no consent to arbitrate this third-person-use wrongful death dispute in her representative or beneficiary capacity. Uber established neither delegation nor agreement to arbitrate the underlying claims (¶¶ 72–74).

## Disposition and limits

The court reversed the appellate judgment, affirmed the circuit judgment, and remanded. Wrongful death proceedings may resume; survival counts remain voluntarily dismissed (¶¶ 76–79). It expressly declined to decide procedural or substantive unconscionability (¶ 74). Its decision addresses arbitration, leaving the pleaded negligence and wrongful death merits for further proceedings (¶¶ 6, 76). The court acknowledged a fine distinction between delegation scope and initial consent, and inconsistent decisions elsewhere (¶ 67).

Started (UTC)

2026-10-04T03:59:52Z

Completed (UTC)

2026-10-04T04:01:27Z