Insurance Law

Following years of correspondence between the parties regarding the defendant policyholder’s claim for uninsured motorist coverage that she filed after he daughter was struck by a car, the plaintiff insurance company filed an action for declaration of no coverage. The plaintiff argued that defendant had not filed the proper forms and the circuit court entered judgment in the insurance company’s favor. On appeal, the defendant asserted numerous claims of error, including that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to bar the testimony of plaintiff’s attorney concerning conversations he had with representatives of the plaintiff as a sanction for his conduct at trial. The appellate court agreed that the sanction was an abuse of discretion, but affirmed after finding that it did not prejudice the defendant and that their offer of proof made it clear that the testimony would not have proven their claim that the insurance company was estopped from denying coverage. (ODEN JOHNSON and TAILOR, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from the circuit court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking insurance coverage from the defendant for costs the plaintiff incurred defending an underlying sexual misconduct lawsuit. The circuit court dismissed the complaint because the sexual misconduct lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution and did not result in a trial in which plaintiff was found not liable, a condition precedent for coverage under the policy. On appeal, the plaintiff argued, among other things, that enforcing the policy as written rendered the coverage “illusory” and that It was against public policy. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that an insurance policy that provides limited coverage is not illusory so long as it provides some coverage and that plaintiff had forfeited his public policy arguments. (McBRIDE and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

Intervenor appealed from the denial of her motion to vacate orders entered by the trial court that sealed certain insurance conservation records under the Illinois Insurance Code. On appeal, the primary issue before the court was whether the trial court erred in deciding that the Code does not violate the first amendment right of public access to court recordings by requiring confidentiality in insurance conversations. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the intervenor had not met her burden of proof in establishing unconstitutionality. (MIKVA and NAVARRO, concurring)