Insurance Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, bad faith for delay of payment under the Illinois Insurance Code, and implied private right of action under the Illinois Administrative Code based on the defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable written explanation regarding her personal injury claim within 30 days of determining liability. The circuit court dismissed the third count by finding that there was no private right of action and then granted summary judgment for the remaining two counts by finding that the insurance company made a good faith determination to pay after a reasonable investigation. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for additional discovery. (PUCINSKI and GAMRATH, concurring)

Plaintiff insurance carrier filed a declaratory judgment action asking the court to find that the carrier did not owe coverage to its insured where the policy required notice within 30 days of an automobile collision and where the insured did not provide notice for more than two years. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurer and the insured appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the insured’s notice was unreasonable as a matter of law and that there was no coverage under the policy. (HYMAN, concurring and PUCINSKI, specially concurring)

In a subsequent declaratory judgment action arising out of an underlying personal injury action in which the defendant insured filed for bankruptcy, the appellate court considered whether the circuit court properly granted the insured’s motion to dismiss by finding that a previous declaratory judgment action barred the subsequent declaratory judgment action under the doctrine of res judicata and that there was no actual controversy where the parties agreed as to the limits of the insurance policies. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court did not err when it dismissed the second amended complaint where the complaint failed to state a cause of action since it did not allege an actual controversy. (MARTIN and LAMPKIN, concurring)