Insurance Law

(Court opinion corrected 3/14/18.) Dispute over insurance coverage, after a woman was killed and a man was injured in a shooting in parking lot outside Dominick's on northwest side of Chicago. Dominick's was sued by decedent's estate and tendered its defense for 2 other insurers, and later sought indemnification. Those 2 insurers denied coverage, and Dominick's filed suit for declaration of coverage and damages for insurers' alleged bad-faith conduct. Netherlands Insurance (CGL insurer of shopping plaza where Dominick's was located) owed Dominick's a duty to defend and indemnify under relevant language of policy. Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Netherlands on bad faith claims, as their position was not unreasonable, and a bona fide dispute over coverage existed. Complaint alleged that Dominick's failed to keep its premises safe for its patrons and invitees. Case law does not require a defect in the premises before a suit can be interpreted as alleging liability arising out of the premises.(BURKE and McBRIDE, concurring.)

A fire rendered the home of Plaintiffs a total loss, but Plaintiffs and their insurer could not agree on loss valuation. Policy provided for an appraisal process in the event of disagreement as to amount of loss. Insurer failed to notify Plaintiffs of its appraiser, and parties did not select a neutral appraisal umpire. Plaintiffs then filed petition for judicial appointment of appraisal umpire in circuit court, which court granted on same date petition was filed, and without notice of or service upon insurer. Order appointing appraisal umpire is vacated, as insurer was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to court ruling on petition. (WELCH and MOORE, concurring.)

Plaintiff driver was killed by speeding hit-and-run driver. Antistacking provision in Plaintiff’s policy is not ambiguous. The “other vehicle insurance with us” provision applies where 2 or more vehicles belonging to same insured are covered by policies issued by Plaintiff’s insurer, and “other insurance” provision refers only to a situation where a different policy issued by a different company applies. Thus, court erred in granting summary judgment for Plaintiff.  (CATES, concurring; GOLDENHERSH, dissenting.)

(Court opinion corrected 2/5/18.) Insurance dispute arising out of monies paid in survival and wrongful death action filed by mother of 15-year-old boy who died after a drug overdose; mother alleged that City's paramedics failed to provide any treatment to boy, who was unresponsive upon their first arrival at  family home; several hour later, paramedics were again summoned to the home and boy was found unresponsive and blue, later declared dead at hospital.Court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant insurer. "Products-Completed Operations Hazard" provision of policy is specifically included in aggregate coverage, and it relates to construction operations by City, and does not relate to failure of treatment and transport by City's EMTs and paramedics. (COBBS and HOWSE, concurring.)

Plaintiffs (driver and passenger) were injured when driver's vehicle was struck by underinsured (UIM)driver. Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action, asking court to find that policy provides $300,000 in UIM motorist coverage to both Plaintiffs, as policy allowed aggregation of liability limits of UIM coverage on 4 vehicles. Listing multiple limits on declarations page creates an ambiguity that is not cured by antistacking clause, which prohibits combining of coverages, as opposed to prohibiting the combining of the limits of liability. (CATES and MOORE, concurring.)

Court found insurer had no duty to defendant Plaintiff construction company in underlying action filed by employee of its subcontractor, which had procured insurance coverage with insurer on company's behalf. Court found that policy excluded bodily injury to subcontractor's employees. As injured plaintiff in underlying action was employee of subcontractor, the broad employee exclusion applied, negating any duty of insurer to defend subcontractor in underlying action.(FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, concurring.)