Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiff’s commercial general liability policy did not provide coverage for defendant’s injuries sustained on yacht that was owned by insured-construction company. Language in policy provided insurance only in connection with insured’s “construction, reconstruction, repair or erection of buildings,” and also contained exclusion for liability arising out of ownership, use or entrustment to others of any watercraft owned by insured. Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that policy provided coverage for instant accident where instant policy did not expressly exclude non-construction-related injuries.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant-insurance company had duty to defend underlying lawsuit alleging, among other things, that insured was responsible for third-party’s injuries arising out of accident in which truck that was owned by insured struck third-party’s vehicle. While defendant argued that its policy did not cover instant accident, where insured’s truck was being driven on behalf of another entity that had placard on insured’s truck, and thus was excluded by policy’s Contingent Liability Endorsement, defendant had duty to defend insured in underlying lawsuit since underlying lawsuit had certain counts that specifically alleged that truck was being operated on behalf of named insured under plaintiff’s policy. Fact that underlying lawsuit also contained allegations against other entity that was not covered under policy did not require different result, since defendant had duty to defend lawsuit despite presence of proscribed theory of recovery. Moreover, defendant had duty to defend even if other entity may ultimately be found to liable in underlying lawsuit.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action to determine whether car-insurance policy issued by plaintiff to defendant-insured provided any underinsured motorist coverage under circumstances where defendant received $100,000 settlement from other driver, and where plaintiff’s policy provided defendant with $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage for each of four cars listed in policy. Although defendant paid separate underinsured motorist premiums for each car, defendant could not stack underinsured motorist coverage for said cars given language in “Other Insurance” provision that limited coverage to highest limit of any of four underinsured motorist provisions in policy. As such, defendant was not entitled to any underinsured motorist coverage, even though his injuries exceeded $100,000 settlement, since: (1) highest coverage for all four cars was $100,000; and (2) plaintiff was entitled to set off $100,000 settlement against any underinsured motorist obligation it had under policy.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in defendant-insured’s favor in action to determine whether plaintiff-insurance company properly treated certain premium adjustments/credits to parties’ workers compensation insurance policy, where record showed that defendant was entitled to substantial Illinois Contracting Classification Premium Adjustment Program (ICC) credit, and where plaintiff insisted that parties had orally agreed to how plaintiff would account for such credit by inflating different credit at time of policy’s inception. Parole-evidence rule precluded plaintiff from establishing existence of instant alleged oral agreement due to presence of integration clause in policy, and thus defendant was entitled to full ICC credit for three years of premiums at issue in lawsuit.