Insurance Law

Bankmanagers Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 12-3202 & 13-1506 Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 5, 2013
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendant-insurance company in action seeking declaration that defendant’s financial-institution bond required defendant to defend and indemnify plaintiff in underlying action seeking recovery for plaintiff's role in drafting 570 cashier’s checks improperly used by corporate officer to pay personal debts of officer from corporation’s bank account. Specific clause in bond provided coverage only for fraud occurring on plaintiff’s premises, and record showed that corporate officer never entered plaintiff’s premises, but rather sent third-party to obtain said checks. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s argument that clause did not apply since corporate officer committed larceny, rather than fraud.

Rogers v. Imeri

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Dramshop Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (5th) 110546
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 1, 2013
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Effingham Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed; certified question answered.
Justice: 
CHAPMAN
(Court opinion corrected 4/2/13.) Statutory limitation on liability of Guaranty Fund, allowing a setoff of full policy limits even if Plaintiff settles for less than full limits or does not pursue a claim, is generally applicable in dramshop cases, thus preventing claimants from seeking recovery from Fund without first exhausting other coverage. Reduction for "other insurance" recoveries is applied against jury verdict and then reduced to statutory maximum in Dramshop Act if necessary. (GOLDENHERSH and STEWART, concurring.)

John Crane Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 093240
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
HARRIS
(Court opinion corrected 4/1/13.) Manufacturing company had been named as a defendant in over 250,000 asbestos-related bodily injury claims, and its insurer agreed to adopt a no settlement policy based on company's position that their products were not the likely source of disease. Insurer and company then entered into agreement concerning coverage to resolve disputes for asbestos claims. Umbrella and excess policies provide for payment of amount of loss in excess of loss payable by underlying policies, based on language in underlying primary policies which contain the "all sums" language. Where coverage for asbestos claims is triggered by bodily injury or disease, all triggered policies are jointly and severally liable. Coverage is triggered upon proof of exposure, sickness, or disease.(QUINN and CONNORS, concurring.)

Koransky, Bouwer & Poracky, P.C. v. The Bar Plan Mutual Insurance Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-1579
Decision Date: 
April 2, 2013
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., S. Bend Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-law firm seeking declaration that policy issued by defendant-insurance policy covered legal malpractice claim filed by plaintiff’s client when seller of property rescinded client’s contract to purchase said property due to plaintiff’s failure to timely forward executed copy of contract to seller, where defendant claimed that plaintiff had failed to timely notify it of mistake that eventually resulted in malpractice claim. Terms of policy provided coverage for acts or omissions predating policy period only where plaintiff had no basis to believe that it had committed such acts or omissions, and record indicated that plaintiff had basis to believe that it had committed act or omission where: (1) associate in plaintiff’s law firm admitted to client two months prior to effective date of instant policy that he had misfiled executed contract; and (2) seller in underlying property contract had filed state court proceeding prior to effective date of policy seeking declaration that no contract had existed due to failure of plaintiff to timely deliver executed contract. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that policy did not require that it notify defendant about misfiled contract until plaintiff had received malpractice claim filed by client.

Metzger v. Country Mutual Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (2d) 120133
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 21, 2013
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
De Kalb Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
BIRKETT
Plaintiff injured in auto accident filed declaratory judgment action on insurance coverage. Defendant insurer had no duty to indemnify nor duty to defend. Issue of coverage is ripe for consideration as Plaintiff sued insured under business policy. That policy does not potentially cover vehicle involved in accident, as it was not a "non-owned vehicle" under the business policy, and corporation borrowed vehicle, and did not lease or hire it, and thus exclusion of coverage applies. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)

American Access Casualty Co. v. Reyes

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 27, 2013
Docket Number: 
No. 115601
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 declaration that it owed no coverage and no duty to defend any claim arising out of car accident in which defendant-named insured was driver where terms of policy specifically excluded defendant as covered “operator” of defendant’s vehicle. Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that instant named driver exclusion was against public policy and invalid when applied to named insured and vehicle owner. Appellate Court further noted that section 7-317(b)(2) of Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law required that owner’s liability insurance policy cover named insured, and that plaintiff could not completely exempt defendant from coverage under policy.

Byer Clinic and Chiropractic, LTD. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 113038
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Court properly dismissed, per Section 2-619, clinic's declaratory judgment action against its insurer, finding that no justiciable controversy as to chiropractor named in underlying class action suit. Coverage issue raised by complaint was not ripe for adjudication, as insurer was presently defending chiropractor under reservation of rights and it had not filed declaratory judgment action contesting that defense. (QUINN and CONNORS, concurring.)

O'Connor v. Country Mutual Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (3d) 110870
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kankakee Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN
Court properly entered judgment for insurer, finding that Plaintiff insured had failed to prove that insurer engaged in unreasonable and vexatious conduct in its settlement of her underinsured motorist insurance claim. That arbitration panel awarded sum more than twice the amount of insurer's offer does not in itself establish that insurer acted unreasonably or vexatiously, or violated Section 154.6(e) of Insurance Code. No bright-line rule exists to prevent shielding documents with attorney-client privilege in Section 155 action. (WRIGHT and CARTER, concurring.)

The Village of Crestwood v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 120112
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 22, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
(Court opinion corrected 3/15/13.) Village and its mayor filed declaratory judgment action as to whether three excess public entity general liability insurers owed duties to defend or indemnify against suits that Village knowingly and routinely mixed polluted water into municipal tap water supply to cut municipal expenses. Court properly held that underlying claims fell within absolute pollution exclusion clauses in all insurance contracts. The exclusion itself contains no indication that it is limited to clean-up costs imposed by environmental laws such as CERCLA; exclusion is unqualified and absolute and entirely precludes coverage for bodily injuries or property damage from discharge of pollutants, which is alleged in underlying complaint. (EPSTEIN and PALMER, concurring.)

House Bill 2617

Topic: 
Health Care Services Lien Act
(Tracy, R-Quincy) requires that notice be provided to a lien holder by an injured person or authorized representative when a case is dismissed or a judgment is entered against the injured person in the same manner as a notice of a judgment, award, settlement, or compromise is already provided.