Insurance Law

Plaintiff appealed from a trial court order entering summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an insurance coverage dispute arising out of an underlying consumer fraud complaint brought by a former customer. The appellate court reversed, finding that because the underlying complaint alleged only intentional misconduct there was no coverage. (McLAREN and JORGENSEN, concurring)

Insurance coverage matter arising out of a suit for injuries caused by intentional conduct. The parties to the underlying matter reached a settlement agreement and the insured assigned his rights to the injured plaintiff who then asserted that the insurer breached its duty to defend and that the failure to defend was vexatious and unreasonable under section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code. The circuit court found that the settlement agreement in the underlying matter was not the result of collusion and entered judgment against the insurer for the limits of the policy, but did not award section 155 damages. The appellate court affirmed. (HYMAB and COGHLAN, concurring)

Insurance coverage dispute arising out of an automobile collision. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the insured and the insurance company argued on appeal that the at-fault driver was not an insured under the terms of the policy. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the family member exclusion did not apply to the driver and that the availability of the vehicle for use by the driver was not so frequent or habitual as to be deemed a “regular” use and holding that the vehicle was not excluded from liability coverage. (DAUGHERITY and HOLDRIDGE, concurring)

Insurance coverage dispute as to whether a homeowner’s policy provided coverage for a fire started when the policyholder was performing plumbing work “as a favor for a friend” at a townhouse residence that he did not own. The trial court found that the homeowner’s policy covered the damages. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the policyholder was not a plumber by trade and did not receive compensation for his work so that the “professional services” and “business pursuits” exclusions of the policy did not bar coverage and that the policy did not explicitly exclude liability for negligence at another homeowner’s property. (McBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring)

Insurance coverage matter addressing an issue of first impression as to whether uninsured motorist coverage is available when the would-be tortfeasor denies liability. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court, finding that an insured motorist’s denial of liability does not transform him into an uninsured motorist. (DELORT and CUNNINGHAM, concurring)

Trial court ruled in favor of the insured in an insurance coverage case arising out of weather-related damage to the insured’s property but denied the insured’s request for interest. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that payment became due 30 days after the final appraisal was issued and not, as the insured argued, 30 days after the proof of loss was filed. (SCHOSTOK and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Plaintiff appealed trial court dismissal of its breach of contract complaint against defendant, alleging that the trial court erred in finding the contamination exclusion of the insurance policy applied to loss or damage caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and that the trial court erred when it denied plaintiff’s request to amend its complaint. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the terms of the insurance policies at issue were not ambiguous and did not provide for loss or damages caused by a communicable disease. The court also found that plaintiff had forfeited review of the trial court’s denial of its request for leave to amend by failing to tender a proposed amended complaint along with supporting facts. (MIKVA and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring)