Insurance Law

Public Act 98-1132

Topic: 
Jury size and pay
(Burke, D-Evergreen Park; Mulroe, D-Chicago) makes the following changes for juror pay: (1) Requires counties to pay jurors $25 for the first day of service and thereafter $50 for each day of service. (2) Deletes the current requirement to pay for jurors’ travel expenses. (3) Requires all trials by jury in civil cases to be six jurors but still requires that the verdict be unanimous. If alternate jurors are requested, an additional fee established by the county must be charged for each alternate juror requested. Effective date is June 1, 2015.
View Full Text of Legislation

Allstate Indemnity Company v. Hieber

Allstate Indemnity Company v. Hieber
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 132557
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
MASON
Court properly granted summary judgment for insurer, holding that insurer is not required to defend or indemnify insured homeowners for son’s accidental shooting death of friend when waving loaded gun around a group of friends who had been drinking and using drugs all day. Son elected to go to trial on involuntary manslaughter charge, for which he was convicted, and his conviction was a final determination on merits. State of mind necessary to conviction is implicated by policy exclusion for criminal acts.(PUCINSKI, concurring; HYMAN, dissenting.)

American Service Insurance Company v. Iousoupov

American Service Insurance Company v. Iousoupov
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 133771
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 12, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON
Insurer issued commercial auto insurance policy to taxi company for which Defendant was a driver. Defendant driver was injured in collision with underinsured driver, but insurer denied claim, stating that limits of driver's liability insurance policy were greater than limits of insurer's underinsured motorist coverage. Court properly entered summary judgment for insurer, as insurer's election form was not ambiguous, and taxi company had knowingly elected to reject higher coverage limits, and chose minimum limits of UM and UIM coverage. (PALMER and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Nelson v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Nelson v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 26, 2014
Docket Number: 
No. 118058
District: 
1st Dist.
In garnishment action against defendant-car rental company seeking turnover of $600,000 to compensate plaintiff for personal injuries in underlying action against driver of defendant’s rental vehicle, where plaintiff had obtained default judgment against said driver, trial court granted plaintiff’s garnishment petition, but limited turnover amount to $25,000 based upon defendant’s claim that, as self-insured rental car company, its total liability was limited to $100,000, and that it had already paid $75,000 to two other individuals involved in same accident. Appellate Court, in finding that defendant was responsible for entire $600,000 default judgment, held that although defendant could have limited its obligation to statutory minimum coverage had it purchased liability insurance policy containing said minimum coverage, its choice to become self-insured meant that it was responsible for entire amount of default judgment.

Margulis v. BCS Insurance Company

Margulis v. BCS Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 140286
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Plaintiff filed class action petition in Missouri against insurance agent/broker that had transmitted unsolicited, automated phone calls advertising its services. Settlement in Missouri for $4.999 million, with judgment to be satisfied exclusively from proceeds of insurance policies and claims against agent/broker's insurer. Plaintiff then filed declaratory judgment action in Cook County against insurer. As automated phone calls were not negligent acts, errors or omissions arising out of conduct of agent/broker's business in "rendering services for others" as a licensed agent/broker under its professional liability insurance policy. Thus, insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify, as terms of policy clearly preclude possibility of coverage. (HOWSE and TAYLOR, concurring.)

Strauss v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Strauss v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2580
Decision Date: 
November 18, 2014
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that policies of defendants-insurance companies providing coverage for property damage to plaintiffs’ home for period between October 1994 to October 2005 covered water damage to plaintiffs’ home that was discovered in 2010, but had occurred throughout time that said policies had been issued. Dist. Ct. could properly find that “continuous” trigger theory applied, where language of policy provided coverage for “all risk of physical loss” that occurred within policy period, with continuous exposure being considered one occurrence, and where damage initially occurred within relevant time period and continued after each rain until time of discovery. Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that manifestation trigger theory always applied to instant first-party property insurance policies so that policy in effect at time that damage is discovered is applicable policy for providing coverage.

Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc.

Central Mutual Insurance Company v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123339
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed in part and affirmed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
MASON
(Court opinion corrected 11/17/14.) Insurance declaratory action filed after underlying class action filed alleged claims for unsolicited faxes in violation of federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Although in Illinois, statutes and public policy provide rights to persons injured from auto accidents, by requiring insurance, there is no corresponding public policy requiring those who advertise through electronic transmissions to carry liability insurance to cover possibility that those receiving ads electronically have not consented to receive them. Insurer and insured did not act together to defeat class action plaintiff's rights under the policies, as they were unaware of his claim due his delay in asserting it. (PUCINSKI and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-2525 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
November 13, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
In action by plaintiff-excess general liability insurance company seeking declaration that defendant-title insurance company had duty to defend insured on all claims in underlying action under circumstances where title insurance policy provided limited coverage for claims involving defects in title or lien priority and/or other claims adverse to insured’s title, and where underlying lawsuit alleged actions that were and were not covered by title insurance policy, Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendant had duty to defend entire lawsuit under “complete defense” rule. Complete defense rule does not apply to title insurance policies, which seek to insure only limited range of losses related to defects in title. Moreover, Ct. observed that Ill. Supreme Ct. had only applied complete defense rule in context of general liability insurance policies.

Minnesota Life Insurance Co. v. Jones

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Minnesota Life Insurance Co. v. Jones
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1063
Decision Date: 
November 5, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In instant interpleader action to determine ownership of life insurance proceeds between sister of deceased and alleged son of deceased, Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding said proceeds to son, even though sister asserted that deceased, who died intestate and did not name beneficiary in policy, was homosexual and was therefore not father to said son. While sister argued that Dist. Ct. had erred in failing to require alleged son to take paternity test, Ill. Parentage Act created presumption that deceased was natural father to alleged son, where deceased and son’s mother had signed acknowledgement of paternity. Moreover, sister lacked standing under Parentage Act to challenge parentage order, and instant claim by sister was in essence claim under Parentage Act. Also, sister’s allegations regarding homosexuality of deceased was not conclusive evidence that deceased could not have been father of alleged son.

Bowers v. General Casualty Insurance Co.

Bowers v. General Casualty Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (3d) 130655
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Bureau Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LYTTON
Plaintiffs filed declaratory judgment action seeking judgment that their underinsured (UIM) motorist coverage for three vehicles was not limited to one vehicle. Court properly granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs, finding that $250,000 UIM limit for each vehicle could be aggregated, or stacked, ot arriave at maximum coverage limit of $750,000. Policy contains contradictory provisions, and thus must be construed against insurer. By listing each vehicle separately in vehicle coverages section, ambiguity arises in policy as an insured may reasonably presume separate UIM limits apply to each covered vehicle and that limits could be stacked because separate UIM premiums were paid for each vehicle. (CARTER, concurring; WRIGHT, specially concurring.)