Insurance Law

Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Company

Cook v. AAA Life Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123700
Decision Date: 
Monday, June 9, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
DELORT
After death of its insured, who had just paid policy premiums, bona fide dispute existed as to coverage, and as life insurance company did not unconditionally accept insured's check for payment of premiums (as it held check in its suspense account and later tried to return funds to insured's widow), insurer's actions and delay in paying policy proceeds, including time to retain outside counsel, were not vexatious and unreasonable. Court properly denied motion for Rule 137 sanctions against insurer, as court found no evidence of intentional misrepresentation or bad faith condust by insurer. (HOFFMAN, concurring; CUNNINGHAM, specially concurring.)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Central Mutual Insurance Co.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Central Mutual Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 133145
Decision Date: 
Friday, May 23, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Employee of a sub-subcontractor was injured on home construction site. Although electrical subcontractor was contractually required to maintain insurance coverage for its subcontractors as additional insured, subcontractor agreement did not specify that additional coverage be primary or excess. Insurer for sub-subcontractor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it is an excess insurer only and that it is not estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. Condition precedent language in policy is pivotal in determining which insurer is primary and which is excess, and the two policies are compatible primary and excess policies. (GORDON and PALMER, concurring.)

Pang v. Farmers Insurance Group

Pang v. Farmers Insurance Group
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123204
Decision Date: 
Thursday, May 1, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAVIN
(Court opinion corrected 5/8/14.) Plaintiff, a permissive passenger, was injured in car accident.Plain meaning of driver's umbrella policy does not provide underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits to permissive passengers, but only to named insureds, persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or anyone under age 21 in care of insureds. Although primary auto liability policies must be all-encompassing, and cannot exclude permissive passengers for UIM coverage, coverage of umbrella policy is discretionary between insurer and insured. (HOWSE and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)

Amco Insurance Company v. Cincinnati Insurance Company

Amco Insurance Company v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 122856
Decision Date: 
Monday, May 5, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Court properly granted insurer's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Targeted tender doctrine does not allow insurers to deselect themselves as targeted insurers after settlement of insured's underlying suit. Doctrine should be narrowly applied to types of factual situations for which it was originally intended. Point of targeted tender doctrine is to allow the insured to select which insurer it wants to target for defense of underlying suit. (CONNORS and DELORT, concurring.)

Pang v. Farmers Insurance Group

Pang v. Farmers Insurance Group
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123204
Decision Date: 
Thursday, May 1, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LAVIN
Plaintiff, a permissive passenger, was injured in car accident.Plain meaning of driver's umbrella policy does not provide underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits to permissive passengers, but only to named insureds, persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or anyone under age 21 in care of insureds. Although primary auto liability policies must be all-encompassing, and cannot exclude permissive passengers for UIM coverage, coverage of umbrella policy is discretionary between insurer and insured. (HOWSE and FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring.)

American Access Casualty Company v. Griffin

American Access Casualty Company v. Griffin
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130665
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 31, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
LAMPKIN
Insurer filed declaratory judgment complaint seeking declaration that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify driver for losses caused by her use of a vehicle owned by her mother. Court erred in granting summary judgment, as Plaintiff's affidavit is insufficient to demonstrate that its right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Insurer may not rely on default judgment entered against driver and her mother in support of its motion for summary judgment. (HALL and REYES, concurring.)

Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mutual Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Tuzzolino and Terpinas

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mutual Ins. Co. v. Law Office of Tuzzolino and Terpinas
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 26, 2014
Docket Number: 
No. 117096
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking rescission of legal malpractice policy that plaintiff had issued to defendant-law firm, where basis of action was fact that one partner in law firm had failed to notify plaintiff of information regarding potential malpractice claim at time of policy’s renewal. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that common law innocent insured doctrine applied so as to provide coverage for innocent partner of defendant law firm, who was unaware of potential malpractice claim, even though material misrepresentation by other member of law firm was made during formation of policy. Appellate Court also found that severability clause in policy afforded coverage to innocent partner and allowed trial court to rescind coverage for partner with knowledge of potential malpractice claim.

Gaudina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Gaudina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 131264
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 28, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PALMER
Plaintiff was injured in car accident while working as a limousine driver; and settled his bodily injury claim with other driver for policy limit of $250,000. Plaintiff then filed underinsured motorist claim with his wife's auto insurer, which denied coverage on grounds that at time of accident Plaintiff was not residing primary with his wife and thus did not fit policy definition of "spouse". As term "spouse" is specifically defined in the policy, the definition in policy controls. Undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff did not primarily reside with his wife at time of accident. Thus, court properly granted summary judgment for insurer, finding that Plaintiff was not an insured entitled to coverage. (McBRIDE and TAYLOR, concurring.)

The John T. Doyle Trust v. Country Mutual Insurance

The John T. Doyle Trust v. Country Mutual Insurance
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (2d) 121238
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Jo Daviess Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HUTCHINSON
Plaintiffs leased space to Defendant, who is an architect, artist, and sculptor, and during lease term Plaintiffs sold leased premises and removed Defendant's personal items, including his artwork; then Defendant filed suit against Plaintiffs in federal court for wrongful eviction and property damage. Policy provision provided coverage for wrongful eviction, including wrongful removal of his property. Policy's breach of contract provision was too vague to be enforceable. Plaintiffs' insurer had duty to Defendant them in federal suit, as he alleged that his personal property was damaged as a result of wrongful eviction. (BURKE and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

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: 
2014 IL App (2d) 121276
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 24, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Reversed in part and affirmed in part; judment entered.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Plaintiff filed class action complaint against Defendant for sending it unsolicited faxes. Insurers filed declaratory judgment coverage action. Conflict of laws exists between Illinois and Pennsylvania as to whether insurer owed a duty to defend under "property damage" provision of policies. Factors under choice-of-law analysis weigh in favor of Pennsylvania as state to govern interpretation of policies. Under Pennsylvania law, complaint did not allege an "accident" and insurer had no duty to defendant under property damage provisions, and no duty to indemnify.(BURKE and SPENCE, concurring.)