Insurance Law

Kuhn v. Owners Insurance Co.

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Kuhn v. Owners Insurance Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
September 27, 2023
Docket Number: 
No. 129895
District: 
4th Dist.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly found that defendant’s insurance policy, that covered seven vehicles, provided same $1 million coverage for each vehicle and had anti-stacking clause, provided $7 million in coverage for single accident, where accident involved only one of said vehicles, and where trial court found policy was ambiguous as to whether anti-stacking clause applied. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that instant anti-stacking clause, which explicitly stated that limits for same or similar coverage as to other vehicles could not be added to determine amount of coverage for single accident, cleared up any ambiguity, and thus should be enforced. Also, Appellate Court observed that no insured would have believed that instant $6,311.69 premium for coverage on all seven vehicles represented payment of separate premiums so as to potentially allow for stacking.

Continental Casualty Co. v. 401 North Wabash Venture, LLC

Continental Casualty Co. v. 401 North Wabash Venture, LLC
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance Coverage
Citation
Case Number: 
2023 IL App (1st) 221625
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, August 30, 2023
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
3d Div./Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
REYES

The State of Illinois filed a lawsuit against the defendant in connection with allegedly improper operation of a cooling water intake structure at a property owned by the defendant. Defendant’s insurers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they owned no duty to defend the defendant in connection with the underlying lawsuit, the circuit court found in favor of the insurers, and defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the conduct alleged in the underlying complaint did not constitute an “occurrence” under the insurance policies. (McBRIDE and D.B. WALKER, concurring)

McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Pekin Insurance Co.

McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Pekin Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance Coverage
Citation
Case Number: 
2023 IL App (3d) 190722
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, August 23, 2023
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Iroquois Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
ALBRECHT

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment relating to the defendant’s denial of coverage for damages incurred to a building owned by the plaintiffs and insured by the defendant. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the defendant finding that the governmental action exclusion contained in the policy precluded coverage and plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the exclusionary language applied to the claim because plaintiff’s building was damaged by the city-ordered demolition of a neighboring building and the policy excluded both direct and indirect damage caused by government action. (HOLDRIDGE and McDADE, concurring)

Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Srachta

Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Srachta
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance Coverage
Citation
Case Number: 
2023 IL App (3d) 220089
Decision Date: 
Monday, August 14, 2023
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HETTEL

Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action against its insureds asking the court to declare that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendant homeowner association against claims made by homeowner association residents in a derivative suit. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings finding that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred defendants from seeking defense in the derivative suit where a judgment rendered in a prior case determined that plaintiff had no duty to defend. The appellate court agreed with the reasoning of the trial court and affirmed. (HOLDRIDGE and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Jadair International, Inc. v. American National Property and Casualty Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Jadair International, Inc. v. American National Property and Casualty Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 22-3053
Decision Date: 
August 9, 2023
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motions for summary judgment and declaratory judgment in plaintiff-insured’s action, alleging that it was entitled to insurance proceeds arising out of defendant’s aircraft insurance policy, where plaintiff’s president and pilot of Cessna airplane covered by said policy died in airplane crash. Relevant exclusion in policy provided that there would be no coverage if pilot did not have current and valid medical certificate from FAA, and defendant could properly deny coverage, since owner did not have said certificate at time of airplane crash. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s contention that Endorsement in policy created exception to instant exclusion, or that exclusion did not apply because of cause of crash, i.e., mechanical failure, did not pertain to any health issue of owner.

Moles v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.

Moles v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Illinois Insurance Code
Citation
Case Number: 
2023 IL App (1st) 220853
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
3d Div./Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
R. VAN TINE

Plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s grant of a motion for directed finding in favor of the defendant. The trial court concluded that plaintiff could not seek attorneys fees, costs, or statutory damages under section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code because she did not prevail on any underlying claim based on her insurance policy. Plaintiff argued on appeal that she was allowed to pursue a stand-alone claim even though her breach of contract claim against her insurer was dismissed and she released all other claims against the insurer. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the finding of the trial court. (McBRIDE and REYES, concurring)

Public Act 103-388

Topic: 
Civil Procedure discovery and trial procedure

(Halpin, D-Rock Island; Williams, D-Chicago) amends the Code of Civil Procedure to do two things. (1) If a defendant seeks a physical or mental examination of the plaintiff during discovery, it allows the plaintiff to have an additional person to be present and video record the examination. (2) Amends the statute giving a preference for a trial setting by lowering the age of a party from 70 to 67 and includes the surviving spouse or next of kin in a wrongful death action. It requires the case to commence within one year of the motion granting the preference unless the court finds that the moving party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. If any new party is added to a lawsuit after the trial setting, any party may move the court to reschedule the trial to commence up to one year after the date a new defendant appeared and answered the complaint or up to one year after the date a plaintiff was added to the lawsuit. The court shall (now, may) grant a motion for preference in setting for trial if a party or, in the case of a wrongful death action, the surviving spouse or next of kin, shows substantial physical or financial hardship or alternatively shows good cause that the interests of justice will be served by granting a preference in setting for trial within one year of the hearing on the motion. Allows any party to move for a trial continuance of up to six months for good cause shown. Effective July 28, 2023. 

View Full Text of Legislation

The Insurer-Insured Privilege

By Scott O. Reed
August
2023
Article
, Page 32
Unusual among American jurisdictions, Illinois courts recognize a privilege for statements an insured gives to its insurer, even without an attorney present. But this privilege is not absolute.

Daniels v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Daniels v. United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 22-2210
Decision Date: 
July 17, 2023
Federal District: 
W.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-plan administrator’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for bad-faith denial by defendant-plan administrator of their application for coverage for mental health benefits under employer’s self-insurance medical plan. Record showed that while defendant was hired by employer to approve or deny claims for benefits, defendant had no contractual relationship with plan beneficiaries like plaintiffs. Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiffs could not pursue instant bad-faith claim under Wisconsin law, since plaintiffs had no contractual relationship with defendant. Dist. Ct. could also dismiss plaintiffs’ related claims for statutory interest and punitive damages, where: (1) statutory interest claim required finding that there were “overdue payments”, and plaintiffs could not recover interest for alleged benefits wrongly denied; and (2) plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages, where plaintiffs’ substantive claims had been dismissed.

Kuhn v. Owners Insurance Company

Kuhn v. Owners Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance Coverage
Citation
Case Number: 
2023 IL App (4th) 220827
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination regarding the available liability insurance covering a collision between a semitruck and a school bus driven by the plaintiff. The question before the court was whether the coverage contained in the policy, which covered seven vehicles, should be aggregated. The trial court held that the policy was ambiguous and, as a result, that the limits of liability should be aggregated. The insurance company appealed arguing that the anti-stacking clause contained in the policy was unambiguous. The appellate court agreed and reversed. (TURNER and HARRIS, concurring)