Insurance Law

Senate Bill 1833

Topic: 
Personal Information Protection Act
(Biss, D-Skokie; Williams, D-Chicago) will expand the type of information that triggers a breach notification to consumers, including medical information outside of federal privacy laws, biometric data, contact information if combined with identifying information, and login credentials for online accounts. The bill also requires entities holding sensitive information to take “reasonable” steps to protect the information, to post a privacy policy describing their data collection practices, and to notify the Attorney General’s office when breaches occur. Entities will also have to notify the Attorney General’s Office in the event of a breach of geolocation information or consumer marketing information. Passed both chambers.

The County of McLean v. States Self-Insurers Risk Retention Group, Inc.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (4th) 140628
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
STEIGMANN
Alan Beaman, whose murder conviction was reversed by Illinois Supreme Court, which concluded that State unlawfully withheld exculpatory evidence, filed suit in federal court against county and county officials for Section 1983 violation and state-law tort claims, including malicious prosecution."Occurrence" of Beaman's "personal injury" within meaning of insurance policy of county and county officials was his arrest and prosecution, not his exoneration. Because Beaman's alleged "personal injury" occurred outside the policy period, court erred in granting summary judgment for county and county officials. (POPE and HOLDER WHITE, concurring.)

Senate Bill 45

Topic: 
Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act
(Barickman, R-Bloomington; Andersson, R-Geneva) simplifies the procedures to take the deposition of an Illinois person who is subpoenaed for discovery purposes from an out-of-state court. The Act creates establishes a simple, clerical procedure in which a subpoena from an out-of-state court is reissued as a discovery subpoena in Illinois. Passed both chambers.

Centro Medico Panamericano, Ltd v. Laborers' Welfare Fund of the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago and Vicinity

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 141690
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAVIN
(Court opinion corrected 5/28/15.) Court properly granted motion for summary judgment for Defendant (a multiemployer ERISA welfare fund) in insurance coverage dispute. Court properly held that Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case for promissory estoppel, to support claim that Defendant's service representative made unambiguous promise about extent of insurance coverage. Court properly allowed Defendant's claim director's affidavit as to standard practice of service representatives in responding to calls, even though she was not a party to calls, and as to common business practices in company. (HYMAN and MASON, concurring.)

Senate Bill 884

Topic: 
Venue changes
(Radogno, R-Lemont) makes the following changes to the venue section of the Code of Civil Procedure. (1) Deletes current law that if all defendants are nonresidents of Illinois, and action may be commenced in any county. (2) Makes the residence of an Illinois private corporation or railroad or bridge company and any foreign corporation authorized to transact business in Illinois to be any county in which it is doing business if after due inquiry no other office can be found in Illinois. Any county in which it has a registered office would still be considered to be a county of residence. (3) Deletes current law in which a partnership may be sued in any county in which any partner resides. A partnership may be sued in any county in Illinois in which it is doing business if after due inquiry no office can be found in Illinois. (4) Deletes current law in which an Illinois insurance company or one doing business in Illinois may be brought in any county in which the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs may reside. (5) Creates a new motion to dismiss for inconvenient venue. It requires the court to dismiss an action in which none of the parties is a resident of Illinois and over which another forum has jurisdiction unless the cause of action primarily arose in Illinois or the interests of justice require that the action proceed in Illinois. Allows the court to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with the dismissal. A condition of dismissal is that if the plaintiff elects to file an action in another forum within six months after the dismissal order, the defendant must accept service of process from the court. If the statute of limitations has run in the other forum, the defendant must waive that defense. If the defendant refuses to abide by these conditions, the action shall be reinstated for further proceedings in the court in which the dismissal was granted. If the court in the other forum refuses to accept jurisdiction, the plaintiff may, within 30 days after the final order refusing jurisdiction, reinstate the action in which the dismissal was granted.

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.

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
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

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

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.)