Insurance Law

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)

Supreme Court considered whether the Department of Insurance has the authority to resolve a dispute between an insurer and their insured regarding the payment of additional premiums for worker’s compensation coverage. The Supreme Court found that it did under the plain language of section 462 of the Insurance Code and distinguished its holding from the First Districts opinion in CAT Express, 2019 IL App (1st) 181851, which the appellate court incorrectly concluded was dispositive. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET and CARTER, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that her insurer breached an automobile insurance policy because it failed to include sales tax and title fees when it calculated her payout after her vehicle was destroyed in a collision. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint finding that she failed to comply with the relevant requirements to obligate the insurance company to pay taxes and fees. The appellate court agreed and affirmed noting that a contrary finding would contradict the mandatory language contained in the Illinois Administrative Code. (LAVIN and COBBS, concurring)

Declaratory judgment action arising out of a wrongful death lawsuit. Nationwide filed the action against State Farm alleging that the defendant had a duty to defend in the underlying suit under a commercial general liability policy and that it was entitled to indemnification. The circuit court concluded that there was no duty to defend because coverage was precluded by an automotive exclusion in the CGL policy. Nationwide argued on appeal that State Farm was estopped from raising policy defenses to coverage because it failed to either defend the underlying suit under a reservation of rights or to timely seek declaratory judgment on the question. The appellate court agreed with Nationwide that the underlying complaint alleged facts outside of the automotive exclusion that fell within or potentially within the CGL policy and reversed the portion of the lower court’s judgment holding there was no duty to defend. The court also found State Farm was estopped from raising policy defenses and that Nationwide was entitled to indemnification. The court affirmed all other aspects of the circuit court’s judgment. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring).