Insurance Law

Plaintiff made a claim on the all risk insurance policy provided by its insurer. The insurer denied the claim in part based on the policy's "Earth Movement Exclusion", which excluded coverage for losses due to freezing and expansion of soil underground. After both parties rested at end of jury trial, insurer moved for a directed verdict; court reserved ruling on the motion and submitted case to the jury, which returned verdict for Plaintiff. Court erred in granting insurer's motions for directed verdict on the exclusion and motion for Judgment nothwithstanding the verdict, vacating the jury verdict. There was evidence to support the jury's conclusion that there was at least $204,000 in damage to the insulation that occurred prior to any damage that occurred from earth movement and thus was not barred by the exclusion. (HOWSE and BURKE, concurring.)

Plaintiff insurer filed complaint seeking declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify Defendants as additional insureds on its policy. Subcontract explicitly required Defendant's insured to obtain insurance in accordance with requirements that it name Defendants as additional insureds and to obtain CGL insurance on a primary and non-contributory basis that covered them. As insured agreed in the subcontract to name Defendants as additional insureds, they are covered by the plain terms of the CGL policy. Thus, court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants. (MIKVA and GRIFFIN, concurring.)

Defendant corporation was sued for assisting Village to conceal the release of contaminated well water to its residents. Defendant tendered defense of the suits to its 2 insurers. Cases settled for $18.3 million. One insurer, General Casualty, denied coverage and sued for a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Defendant for its intentional conduct. Residents filed counterclaim alleging that insurer breached its contract by denying coverage and acted in bad faith. Court properly granted General Casualty's motion for summary judgment on its complaint and on the counterclaim. Residents' complaints failed to allege facts that trigger coverage and duty to defend. General Casualty was not required to indemnify Defendant for settlement and did not act in bad faith. (GRIFFIN, concurring; WALKER, dissenting.)

Two lawsuits were filed against Defendants alleging fraud in selling certain technology. Defendants tendered the defense of their suits to their insurer, but insurer denied the tender and filed declaratory judgment action. Claims arise out of the claims for wrongful acts in connection with the efficacy or performance of services, products, or technologies sold by Defendants. Policy's products and services liability exclusion bars coverage for claims in underlying litigation. Court properly found that insurer did not have a duty to defend Defendants. (LAMPKIN and BURKE, concurring.)

Defendant was injured when she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Motley which struck another vehicle while attempting to cross an intersection.  Motley was an uninsured motorist and at fault. Defendant filed a claim for uninsured-motorist coverage under her own auto insurance policy, but her vehicle was not involved in the collision. The 1995 amendment to 143a of the Insurance Code allows insurers to exclude vehicles that are owned by the insured or their resident spouse or resident relative and that are not specified in the policy. There is no statutory basis to deny uninsured-motorist coverage to Defendant as she occupied an unowned vehicle that was not furnished or available for her regular use, and Motley was an uninsured motorist. To deny uninsured-motorist coverage to Defendant because she did not occupy her insured auto at time of accident would contravene public policy. (SCHOSTOK and BRENNAN, concurring.)

Plaintiffs filed complaint for breach of contract and conversion stemming from Defendant's construction work on Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant took hundreds of planks of knotty pine wood and other items belonging to Plaintiffs without their consent. Based on clear and unambiguous allegations of intentional conduct by Defendant in underlying claim for conversion, no accident or "occurrence" as defined by policy triggered insurer's duty to defend. Underlying complaint is clearly predicated on an intentional act, and insurer is under no duty to defend an insured when nature of conduct alleged shoed that insured expected or intended to injure the plaintiff. (BIRKETT and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

Plaintiff was injured by hit-and-run driver while bicycling, and made a claim under his mother’s auto insurance policy for uninsured motorist coverage. Insurer improperly denied coverage, finding that Plaintiff’s having filed police report 11 days after the accident was not “within 24 hours or as soon as practicable” as policy required. Plaintiff did not initially realized the severity of his injuries, there were no witnesses, he could not identify the vehicle or driver, and he was in shock and did not know what to do and did not realize that his claim could be filed under his mother’s auto policy Under the circumstances, the elapsed time of 11 days was not unreasonable.  (BURKE, concurring; GORDON, concurring in part and dissenting in part.)