Insurance Law

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.)

Hilco Trading, LLC v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp.

Hilco Trading, LLC v. Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123503
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 17, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Insured trading company was sued by its lender for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation of asset-based loans; and was sued by another lender for defaulting on loan. Insured filed declaratory judgment action alleging that breach of duty to defend. Insured provided services only to a third party and not to Defendants in underlying suit. Allegations in underlying action triggered duty to defend, as defendants alleged that insured completed appraisals with full knowledge and intent that appraisals would be distributed to Plaintiffs, and provided their written consent for Plaintiff to use appraisals.(CONNORS and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Golden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Golden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3901
Decision Date: 
March 11, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Ft. Wayne Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff-insured’s lawsuit alleging that defendant-insurance company’s use of in-house attorneys to represent plaintiff against third-party claims violated Indiana law, since defendant owed plaintiff duty to explain in its policy that such in-house counsel may be used. No such duty existed, where language of policy indicated that defendant would provide defense by “counsel of our choice,” and plaintiff failed to allege that Indiana Dept. of Insurance required that defendant provide more explicit notice regarding identity of counsel.

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science v. Lexington Insurance Company

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science v. Lexington Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 113755
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 7, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
TAYLOR
In declaratory judgment action, insured medical school claimed coverage for settlement it paid in underlying suit filed by former patients seeking compensation for school's decision to discontinue experimental cancer vaccine program. Insurer owed duty to pay for school's defense and settlement costs under primary policy and excess policy, as its policies covered liability resulting from medical incident arising out of professional services. Other insurer owes no duty to indemnify school for settlement, as its policy contained specific exclusion for medical malpractice damages. (GORDON and PALMER, concurring.)

American Service Insurance Company v. China Ocean Shipping Company

American Service Insurance Company v. China Ocean Shipping Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 121895
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SIMON
Declaratory judgment action filed regarding coverage for multivehicle accident with many fatalities and injuries. Defendant owners of trailer involved in accident filed supplemental fee petition seeking insurer for attorney fees and costs and prejudgment interest. Law of the case doctrine bars parties from relitigating issues already decided in same case, as to questions of law and fact and both explicit and implicit decisions. Court properly denied insurer's discovery request, as insurer was seeking discovery as to issues barred by law of the case doctrine. Insurer bears burden of identifying evidence to be elicited in evidentiary hearing to show that insurer is entitled to evidentiary hearing on fee petition. (PIERCE and LIU, concurring.)

Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Trujillo

Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Trujillo
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123419
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 28, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
REYES
(Court opinion corrected 3/5/14.) Court erred in ruling that insurer was entitled to set off insured's claim for underinsured motorist (UDIM) benefits with amounts insurer paid under bodily injury coverage of same insurance policy, relating to car accident with multiple tortfeasors. UDIM coverage is intended to place insured in same position as if injured by motorist with insurance in same amount as UDIM policy. Where policy has latent ambiguity, insured can seek both bodily injury and UDIM benefits. (ROCHFORD and LAMPKIN, concurring.)