Insurance Law

West Bend Mutual Insurance Co v. TRRS Corp.

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
West Bend Mutual Insurance Co v. TRRS Corp.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
May 22, 2019
Docket Number: 
No. 124690
District: 
2nd Dist.

This case presents question as to whether trial court, in relying on doctrine of primary jurisdiction, properly stayed proceedings pending before Workers’ Compensation Commission (WCC), pending resolution of plaintiff-insurance company’s action pending in trial court seeking declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendants-insureds in underlying workers’ compensation claim filed by defendants’ employee. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that trial court improperly stayed WCC proceeding, since: (1) reasons for existence of doctrine of primary jurisdiction were not present because there was no need to refer any specialized controversy to WCC; and (2) purposes served by said doctrine would not be aided in instant case, where legislature granted employee expedited process for determination of entitlement to medical services, and where said process would be improperly delayed while employer and insurance provider resolved dispute over payment of said medical services.

Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co.

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Sanders v. Illinois Union Insurance Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
May 22, 2019
Docket Number: 
No. 124565
District: 
1st Dist.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim against defendants-insurance companies, alleging that defendants improperly denied coverage in underlying malicious prosecution claim against plaintiff-insured. Defendants argued, and trial court found, that instant policies did not provide coverage because trigger for coverage under policies was filing of criminal charges against plaintiff in malicious prosecution claim, which occurred prior to defendant’s policies going into effect. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that trigger for coverage under instant policies was when plaintiff in underlying malicious prosecution claim was exonerated of all alleged baseless criminal charges, which took place at time instant policies were in effect. (Dissent filed.)

Hess v. The Estate of Klamm

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Hess v. The Estate of Klamm
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
May 22, 2019
Docket Number: 
No. 124649
District: 
5th Dist.

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly found that defendant-insurance company had duty to stack four bodily injury liability limits of policy covering four automobiles as result of automobile collision in which defendant’s insured was involved when driving one of said four automobiles. Appellate Court, in modifying trial court’s order, found that under ambiguous language in defendant’s policy, bodily injury limits of liability could be stacked twice, resulting in plaintiffs receiving $200,000 and $600,000 per accident. In its petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that coverage should only be subject to limit of liability for vehicle involved in accident.

Varlen v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Varlen v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Expert Witness
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 17-3212
Decision Date: 
May 16, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured seeking to compel defendant to indemnify it for expenses associate with clean-up of environmental hazards found on plaintiff’s property. Relevant policy contained exclusion for damage arising out of chemical leaks or discharges, and Dist. Ct. could properly grant defendant’s motion to strike testimony from plaintiff’s expert, who asserted that chemical zones on property were formed by sudden and accidental chemical discharges based on volume of spill, which would make said spills covered under policy. Expert failed to show how his expertise or methodology led to his conclusion that chemical discharges were sudden and accidental. As such, without expert testimony, plaintiff failed to show that instant chemical spills were covered by policy.

Xtreme Protection Services, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Co.

Xtreme Protection Services, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 181501
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 3, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div,
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS

Plaintiff filed complaint alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress alleging that Defendant placed listening devices in his office, attached GPS devices to his vehicles, and sent harassing text messages. Court properly held that Defendant had the right to select an independent attorney to defend it in the underlying action due to a conflict of interest with its insurer. Insurer's explicit waiver of its right to deny coverage for compensatory damages based on acts alleged resolved one type of conflict, but its continuing reservation of its right to deny coverage for punitive damages presents another area of potential conflict, as complaint seeks a substantially greater amount of punitive damages than compensatory damages. Insurer has not shown how it was actually hampered in its defense and thus cannot deny coverage by claiming breach of cooperation clause. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Tran v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Tran v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co.
Civil Court
ERISA
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-1723
Decision Date: 
April 29, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed

Dist. Ct. erred in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff-wife of insured in ERISA action alleging that defendant-insurance company had wrongfully failed to pay accidental death and dismemberment benefits, where insured had died while performing autoerotic asphyxiation, which is sexual practice by which insured purposefully restricted blood flow to his brain to induce feeling of euphoria. While Dist. Ct. found that insured’s death qualified as accidental death that did not result from intentionally self-inflicted injury, Ct. of Appeals found autoerotic asphyxiation qualified as intentional self-inflicted injury that precluded coverage under relevant accidental death and dismemberment policy riders. (Dissent filed.)

Continental Casualty Co. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Hennessy Industries, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 180183
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div,
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
PUCINSKI

Declaratory judgment action as to insurance coverage available to Defendant, for itself and as successor-in-interest to Ammco, for personal injury claims arising out ot the underlying claimants' exposure to asbestos through the use of automobile brake equipment manufactured by Ammco. Premises language of occurrence definitions of 2 policies requires that claims arising out of substantially the same conditions existing at the same location be bundled into a single occurrence. Thus, for each location at which multiple claims arose from substantially the same conditions, there will be a separate occurrence. As multiple suits arose from the use of Ammco products at multiple premises and all allege injuries resulting from exposure to asbestos caused by the use of Ammco products, suits arising at each location constitute a separate occurrence per the premises language. (MASON and HYMAN, concurring.)

Surgery Center at 900 North Michigan Avenue, LLC v. American Physicians Assurance Corp., Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Surgery Center at 900 North Michigan Avenue, LLC v. American Physicians Assurance Corp., Inc.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 18-2622
Decision Date: 
April 25, 2019
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for judgment as matter of law in plaintiff-insured’s action alleging that defendant was guilty of bad faith in failing to settle underlying medical malpractice action, where said failure caused plaintiff to become liable for $4.17 million excess judgment because defendant failed to settle malpractice action within $1 million policy limit. Duty to settle arises when third-party demands settlement within policy limits, and there is reasonable probability of recovery in excess of policy limits and reasonable probability of finding of liability against insured. Here, plaintiff failed to present evidence of reasonable probability of finding of liability against it, where: (1) claims representative for defendant, plaintiff’s clinical staff, and attorneys representing plaintiff in malpractice action all thought that plaintiff would not be found liable in malpractice action; and (2) plaintiff’s president severely undermined plaintiff’s defense at trial on malpractice claim. Fact that defendant ultimately increased reserve amount to full $1 million policy limit prior to trial on malpractice claim did not establish, by itself, reasonable probability of plaintiff’s liability in malpractice action, and record otherwise showed that plaintiff’s president repeatedly urged defendant not to settle malpractice action.

Core Construction Services of Illinois Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.

Core Construction Services of Illinois Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Duty to Defend
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (4th) 180411
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 12, 2019
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN

Employee of subcontractor was injured on the job. Defendant insurer of subcontractor named general contractor and company hiring it to do construction project at its facility as additional insureds. Insurer has a duty to defend general contractor in the underlying lawsuit for injuries, because there is the potential that subcontractor's acts or omissions caused employee's injuries. The silence in underlying complaint as to subcontractor's possible negligence is the possible result of tort immunity for employers, and is not a basis for insurer to refuse to defend general contractor. (TURNER and CAVANAGH, concurring.)

Acuity Insurance Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Ass'n

Acuity Insurance Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Ass'n
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Duty to Defend
Citation
Case Number: 
2019 IL App (1st) 180743
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 29, 2019
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div,
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
MIKVA

(Court opinion corrected 4/11/19.) Insurer owed its CGL insured, a carpentry subcontractor, a duty to defend in the underlying construction litigation. Claims against insured were within, or potentially within, insurer's policy coverage, entitling the subcontractor to a defense from insurer. When an underlying complaint alleges that a subcontractor's negligence caused something to occur to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor's scope of work, this alleges an occurrence under this CGL policy language, notwithstanding that it would not be an occurrence from a general contractor or developer's perspective. Subcontractor's other CGL insurer is thus entitled to equitable contribution from it for undertaking the subcontractor's defense. Remanded to allow other insurer to prove up the amount of contribution to which it is entitled.(PIERCE and WALKER, concurring.)