Sheckler v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-tenants of insured seeking declaration that defendant had duty to defend them in underlying contribution claim brought by oven repairman (who was sued by defendant in subrogation claim) for plaintiffs’ alleged negligence that ultimately resulted in oven fire that also damaged landlord’s apartment that was subject to fire insurance policy issued by defendant. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that plaintiffs-tenants were co-insureds under subject fire insurance policy, even though there was nothing in policy between landlord and defendant that specifically designated plaintiffs as co-insureds. Appellate Court also found that defendant owed plaintiffs duty to defend in underlying contribution claim under equitable extension of decision in Dix, 149 Ill.2d 314.