Insurance Law

House Bill 5453

Topic: 
Increased court fees
(Brauer, R-Springfield) lifts the cap on the $25 court-services fee that a county may charge civil litigants and convicted defendants for courthouse security if there is an acceptable cost study prepared that justifies it. Scheduled for House Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning.
View Full Text of Legislation

Powell v. American Service Insurance Company

Powell v. American Service Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Settlements
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 123643
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
DELORT
Court properly dismissed with prejudice complaint for bad-faith failure to settle within policy limits. Plaintiff had demanded $20,000 policy limits of adverse driver's insurer for car accident injuries, but insurer rejected demand. Jury awarded Plaitniff net verdict of $47,951 plus costs. As Plaintiff admitted that he made a potentially illegal U-turn in front of other vehicle, and given nature of accident, Plaintiff did not sufficiently plead facts showing reasonable probability of liability against adverse driver at time of settlement demand, which is when duty to settle arises. (HOFFMAN and CUNNINGHAM, concurring.)

Senate Bill 3169

Topic: 
Funding of litigation
(Haine, D-Alton) creates the Non-Recourse Civil Litigation Funding Act that regulates lending to consumers in litigation in which the consumer assigns to the lender a contingent right to receive a portion of the potential proceeds of the consumer's legal claim. Just introduced.
View Full Text of Legislation

House Billl 4428

Topic: 
Attorney statute of repose
(Sandack, R-Lombard) amends the Code of Civil Procedure statute of repose for attorneys by tolling the six-year statute of repose if the client is still represented by the attorney or the attorney knowingly conceals the act or omission. The period of limitations will not begin to run until the person is no longer represented by the attorney or until the client should have known of the injury. Introduced and referred to House Rules Committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Ins. Co.

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Skaperdas v. Country Casualty Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 29, 2014
Docket Number: 
No. 117021
District: 
4th Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted defendants-insurance company and insurance agent’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint alleging negligence in defendants’ failure to procure insurance coverage for certain individuals, who had subsequently been sued for damages arising out of motor vehicle accident. While trial court found that neither defendant owed plaintiffs duty of care in procuring insurance where defendant-insurance “agent” was not insurance “broker,” Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that plaintiff stated valid cause of action because dichotomy between insurance agent and insurance broker no longer exists under section 2-2201 of Ill. Insurance Placement Liability Act for purposes of establishing duty of care .

Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay

Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Lay
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (4th) 110527-B
Decision Date: 
Thursday, January 23, 2014
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Macoupin Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
KNECHT
Defendant real estate agency sent "blast fax" ad for property without obtaining permission from fax recicipents, in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Insurance policies issued to agency cover damages alleged, under advertising injury, as claim was based on tortious conduct ancillary to performance of real estate services. Insurer had no right to require insured to obtain permission to settle underlying suit or to object to it itself. (POPE and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company v. Law Office of Tuzzolino and Terpinas

Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company v. Law Office of Tuzzolino and Terpinas
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Legal Malpractice
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122660
Decision Date: 
Friday, November 22, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
REYES
(Court opinion corrected 1/13/14.) Court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff legal malpractice insurer, and improperly rescinded contract. Innocent insured clause in insurance policy and common law innocent insured doctrine preserve attorneys' coverage. When applying innocent insured doctrine, court does not necessarily require a divisible contract to partially rescind a contract. Severability clause of insurance policy created separate and distinct contracts, allowing court to partially rescind contract.(HALL and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Public Act 98-506

Topic: 
Driving and cell phones
(D'Amico, D-Chicago; Mulroe, D-Chicago) prohibits using a hand-held cell phone or personal digital assistant while driving. Exempts the use of a hands-free or voice-operated mode, which may include the use of a headset. It also exempts using an electronic communication device that is activated by pressing a single button to initiate or terminate a voice communication. Second or subsequent convictions are moving violations. The fine is a maximum of $75 for the first offense, $100 for the second offense, $125 for the third offense, and $150 for the fourth or subsequent offense. Effective Jan. 1, 2014.
View Full Text of Legislation

Windmill Nursing Pavilion, LTD. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company

Windmill Nursing Pavilion, LTD. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122431
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 13, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PALMER
Class action suit for sending unsolicited fax advertisements, in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), with settlement of $7 million. Insurer provided initial $3 million settlement fund from policies, and then Plaintiff filed declaratory judgment action against insurer to recover remaining amount. Ohio law applies, as insurance policies in issue were executed and delivered in Ohio, and Ohio had most significant contacts. Insurer provided sufficient notice to insured as to TCPA exclusion in renewal policy. Coverage under products-completed operations hazard provision in renewal policy was not available because of valid TCPA exclusion. (GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)