Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that it owed no duty to indemnify defendant-insured on default judgment entered against defendant. Record showed that underlying action was not covered by insurance policy issued by plaintiff because claim occurred outside relevant 2012 to 2013 time period covered by policy. Moreover, while defendant argued that plaintiff was estopped from denying coverage because it had assisted defendant in defending underlying claim, defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of plaintiff’s actions in assisting with defense in underlying action, since: (1) defendant, through its own retained attorney, always maintained control of legal defense in underlying action; and (2) defendant had settled underlying action without knowledge or input from plaintiff.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Insurance