Insurance Law

Public Act 98-927

Topic: 
UM/UIM insurance
(Zalewski, D-Chicago; Mulroe, D-Chicago) amends the Insurance Code to increase the levels of binding arbitration from $50,000 to $75,000 for death or bodily injury to one person and from $100,000 to $150,000 effective for death or bodily injury to two or more persons. It affects all policies issued or renewed after January 1, 2015.

Kim v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 131235
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Decedent worked for engineering company, installing traffic county devices, and was struck and killed by driver. Decedent had used engineering vehicle's oscillating yellow light as a warning to other drivers while he worked, and thus he was using vehicle pursuant to terms of policy issued to engineering company and thus is an insured for liability and underinsured motorist purposes. (SIMON and PIERCE, concurring.)

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Abbott Laboratories

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 132020
Decision Date: 
Monday, July 28, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
DELORT
Italian government recalled prescription drug. Various underwriters had issued product recall insurance policies to pharmaceutical company for three-year term, but sought to rescind policies on basis that company made material misrepresentations as to potential risks created when it acquired another pharmaceutical company. After bench trial, court rejected rescission claim, finding that company did not intentionally make material misrepresentation in its application that that underwriters ratified acquired company endorsement, thus waiving any claim of rescission. Ample evidence supports trial court's findings. Court properly entered final judgment, awarding pharmaceutical company $84.5 million (the limits of its coverage), recoverable costs, and postjudgment interest. Court properly rejected Section 155 vexatious delay claim against insurer, as bona fide coverage dispute existed. (CONNORS and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Pekin Insurance Company v. Rada Development, LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 133947
Decision Date: 
Monday, July 28, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN
Insurer filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that commercial developer was not an additional insured under policy it issued for construction company, a co-defendant in personal injury action. Trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter default judgment order in absence of developer's insurer, where judgment materially affected its rights. Court was within its discretion in allowing developer's insurer to intervene in reopened action by insurer. (CONNORS and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

Fox v. American Alternative Ins. Corp.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-1290
Decision Date: 
July 7, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state valid claim in action alleging that defendant-insurance company breached duty to defend insured in underlying section 1983 action, in which judgment was entered against insured for, among other things, $3.4 million in punitive damages that was not covered by insurance policy in claim that insured subjected victim to false arrest and malicious prosecution in criminal matter. Ct. of Appeals doubted whether Illinois would allow instant lawsuit, which seeks to shift burden of punitive damage award from insured-tortfeasor to insurance company. Moreover, instant insurer, which provided coverage only after primary insurer had exhausted its coverage, did not breach any duty to insured because it did not actually control litigation in underlying lawsuit at time when victim made settlement demand that was within instant insurer’s policy limits. Also, instant insurer was not required to seek out fresh negotiations once insurer had subsequently obtained control of litigation during appeal of underlying case.

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.

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

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

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

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.)