Insurance Law

G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Pennswood Partners, Inc.

G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Pennswood Partners, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 121276-B
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Reversed in part; judgment entered.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Recipient of unsolicited faxed ads, a company with principal place of business in Illinois, filed class action complaint against Pennsylvania corporation with its principal and only place of business in Pennsylvania. Defendant's insurers provided liability coverage for "property damage" caused by "occurrence", and policies define "occurrence" as an "accident." Complaint did not allege property damage accident under Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania law governs interpretation of policies, under Illinois choice of law rules. Defendant company's insurer had no duty to defend and thus no duty to indemnify. (BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. DJW-Ridgeway Building Consultants, Inc.

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. DJW-Ridgeway Building Consultants, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 140441
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Insurer owes building consultants company a duty to defend it in a construction negligence suit. Agreement itemized coverage to be afforded an additional insured to include $2 million in CGL insurance, and $1 million in umbrella liability insurance to be excess of general liability insurance, which demonstrates that first $2 million of CGL that masonry subcontractor was contractually required to provide for building consultant company as additional insured was primary insurance, as opposed to excess or umbrella coverage.Thus, general liability coverage is primary. (McLAREN and BURKE, concurring.)

Orr v. Assurant Employee Benefits

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Orr v. Assurant Employee Benefits
Civil Court
ERISA
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2370
Decision Date: 
May 19, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In ERISA action by plaintiff-beneficiaries seeking to recover proceeds of life insurance policy, Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing instant action, after finding that plaintiffs had failed to fully exhaust defendant-insurance company’s administrative remedies that required plaintiff to seek two levels of appeals of original denial prior to filing any legal action. Plaintiffs were giving two notices of requirement to exhaust all internal appeals prior to filing any lawsuit, and instant action was filed during pendency of second appeal. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ contention that their failure to exhaust defendant’s internal appeal process should be excused, even though plaintiffs' contended that: (1) filing of lawsuit was necessary to allow them ability to obtain additional discovery through subpoena power; (2) plaintiffs’ counsel misinterpreted defendant’s review procedure; and (3) defendant improperly generated additional appeal level in order to frustrate plaintiffs’ efforts to comply with defendant’s review procedure.

American Access Casualty Company v. Alassouli

American Access Casualty Company v. Alassouli
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 141413
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN
Court properly granted summary judgment for insured in declaratory judgment action, as insured failed to show that it was substantially prejudiced in its investigation of auto accident claim by insured's breach of cooperation clause. Insurer is required to show substantial prejudice, and it will not be presumed. Insurer failed to show it exercised reasonable degree of diligence in seeking insured's participation and that insured willfully refused to cooperate. Insurer's efforts to contact insured were wanting, deficient, and cursory, and consisted only of leaving phone messages, and doing skip trace which showed no new phone number or address. Insurer failed to visit insured's known address and failed to send letters seeking his cooperation. Insurer's hiring of private investigator to locate insured does not sbsolve insurer of its duty, as hiring was only after filing declaratory judgment action and two years after the accident.. (PUCINSKI and LAVIN, concurring.)

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Compeve Corporation

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Compeve Corporation
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 142508
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 8, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON
Court properly found that Plaintiff insurer had no duty to defend Defendants in suit filed against them by Microsoft alleging that Defendants violated IP rights by selling computers loaded with unauthorized copies of its software. Policy language requires connection between injury and advertisement. Facts as alleged in Microsoft's complaint do not establish any connection between copyright infringement in advertisement and its alleged injury, and do not alleged that any copyrighted information was contained in advertisement. (PALMER and McBRIDE, concurring.)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Benedetto

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Benedetto
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 141521
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
LAVIN
Insured and his wife were riding motorcycle when unidentified, passing semi crossed over into his lane of travel. Insured swerved and avoided physical contact with semi, but was propelled off road by wind shear of passing semi, onto gravel shoulder and into ditch, where they were thrown from motorcycle and injured. Wind shear does not constitute physical contact under uninsured motorist provision of policy. To collect uninsured motorist coverage there must be actual physical contact with hit-and-run vehicle, or accident occurred as result of chain of events where hit-and-run vehicle struck intermediate vehicle. (PUCINSKI and HYMAN, concurring.)

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Pritchett

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Pritchett
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (3d) 130809
Decision Date: 
Monday, April 27, 2015
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Certified question answered; remanded.
Justice: 
HOLDRIDGE
(Court opinion corrected 5/4/15.) Insurer filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that it has no obligation to arbitrate insured's claim for bodily injury and other claims arising from single-car accident.Policy language is ambiguous as it does not clearly require physical contact between insured vehicle and another vehicle, either directly or through continuous chain of events, for coverage to exist. Policy language is ambiguous as to necessity of physical contact between insured vehicle and either hit-and-run vehicle or object caused by hit-and-run vehicle to make contact with insured vehicle through continuous sequence of events. (CARTER and O'BRIEN, concurring.)

Illinois Founders Insurance Company v. Williams

Illinois Founders Insurance Company v. Williams
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 122481
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 16, 2015
District: 
1st
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
ELLIS
Court did not err in granting summary judgment for insurer on counterclaim for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 155 of Illinois Insurance Code, as insurer had a bona fide dispute as to its coverage of Defendant's hit-and-run claim, and as Defendant provided insufficient record to support her other contentions. Insurer did not act vexatiously or unreasonably in contesting hit-and-run claim, as there was competent evidence of a single-car collision as well as evidence of a hit-and-run scenario. Insurer's actions in obtaining default judgment in its favor were grounded in its litigation of bona fide claim. The fact that court ultimately found that insurer was required to cover accident does not render insurer's declaratory judgment suit vexatious or unreasonable. (HOWSE and COBBS, concurring.)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 140447
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 27, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON
(Court opinion corrected 4/10/15.) Plaintiff insurer filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that its underinsured motorist coverage did not cover policyholder's son for injuries sustained in car accident while attending college in Colorado. Insurer provided 3 auto insurance policies: two to student's father and one to stepmother. Student is covered under policies as "a child away at school". Student did not lose coverage when he registered to vote in Colorado and obtained Colorado driver's license, as policy does not state exclusion will occur in such cases. As student is not a party to contract, his intent as to whether to return to Illinois is not an issue. (McBRIDE and REYES, concurring.)

Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Plano Molding Company

Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Plano Molding Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (2d) 140292
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 26, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
ZENOFF
Plaintiff insured Defendant manufacturer of storage molds under CGL policy. After train derailment, allegedly caused by molds breaking through floor of container and falling onto tracks, various cargo owners sued Defendant for damages to their goods. Plaintiff defended Defendant under reservation of rights until Seventh Circuit determined that only causes of action by shipping company and railroad against Defendant stemmed from its contractual obligations under bill of lading. Language on bill of lading unequivocally states that Defendant warranted that stowage and seals of containers were safe and proper and suitable for handling and carriage. Thus, Defendant agreed to indemnity shipping company and railroad against their own negligence. Parties to contract intended that Defendant's indemnification liability would be restricted to its breach of warranties in contract. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring.)