National Casualty Co. v. White Mountains Reinsurance Co. of America

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant-insurance company’s policy covered underlying section 1983 action alleging that insureds (County and State’s Attorney) subjected two individuals to false imprisonment and malicious prosecution on murder charges, such that defendant was required to reimburse plaintiff for costs in defending insureds in section 1983 action. Defendant’s policy specifically mentioned County as named insured, and State’s Attorney was covered as elected official of political subdivision located within County as contemplated under policy. Moreover, plaintiff could assert successful unjust enrichment theory against defendant where: (1) plaintiff accepted representation of County and State’s Attorney in section 1983 action under reservation of rights; (2) defendant’s predecessor eventually refused to contribute to defense costs of both County and State’s Attorney even though both County and State’s Attorney were covered under defendant’s policy; (3) plaintiff continued to pay defense costs up until Ct. of Appeals in earlier decision found that plaintiff was not liable for said costs under its policy; and (4) plaintiff’s contributions for said costs would constitute improper benefit to defendant.