Insurance Law

Senate Bill 1746

Topic: 
New filing fee
(Trotter, D-Chicago; Harris, D-Chicago) creates a $10 fee to be paid by civil litigants who file an appearance and defendants who are convicted or plead guilty to any felony, misdemeanor, traffic, municipal, or conservation offense to pay for the Supreme Court E-Business Plan. The E-Business Plan is to develop and maintain an automated point-of-access case and statistics management system. It will will include applications for e-filing, e-guilty, and e-signatures as well as trial court and probation data exchanges. Senate Bill 1746 is scheduled for hearing in House Judiciary Committee on Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013.

Area Erectors, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 111764
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 7, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOWSE
Court properly entered judgment on the pleadings, and properly found that actual cash value was the proper valuation, under the policy, for the loss of a construction crane. Bona fide coverage dispute existed, as other insurer contended that replacement value was the proper method of valuation. Thus, court properly denied claims for Section 155 penalties on the crane claim. (PALMER and TAYLOR, concurring.)

LaPlant v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Class Action
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 12-3264
Decision Date: 
November 28, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court breach of annuity contract class action that had been removed by defendant-insurance company to federal court under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). While Dist. Ct. believed “internal affairs” exception to removal under section 453(d) of CAFA applied because it deemed any dispute concerning policies issued by mutual insurer related to insurer’s internal affairs, Ct. of Appeals found that section 453(d) did not apply since instant dispute was contract and insurance law matter that did not pertain to defendant’s internal affairs. Ct. further found that Dist. Ct. erred in striking down choice-of-law provisions in instant contracts where Wisc. courts routinely enforced them. It also directed Dist. Ct. on remand to determine whether nationwide class action on issue of damages is appropriate given fact that 45% of instant 36,000 policies had choice-of-law clauses requiring application of law in class members’ home states.

Northfield Ins. Co. v. City of Waukegan

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 11-1215 & 11-3729 Cons.
Decision Date: 
November 21, 2012
Federal District: 
N.E. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs-insurance companys' motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiffs’ insurance policies covering 1991 to 1995 and November 2006 to November 2009 time periods did not provide coverage in underlying lawsuit alleging that insured's police officials and prosecutors were guilty of false arrest, wrongful conviction and malicious prosecution in criminal sexual assault action that was eventually nolle prossed. Plaintiffs had no duty to defend underlying action under either policy where conviction occurred in 1986, which was operative date for any false arrest action. Moreover, neither policy applied to any malicious prosecution/wrongful conviction claim since operative date was date of exoneration, which occurred either in March of 2006, when Appellate Court overturned conviction, or in May of 2012 when nolle prosequi order was entered.

Geisler v. Everest National Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 103834
Decision Date: 
Friday, November 16, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
R. GORDON
Neurosurgeon sued his medical malpractice insurer for breach of duties under policy. Plaintiff had a claims made policy, and when his employment with clinic terminated, he was notified of noncoverage, and policy was later amended to reflect change, so that he was not covered when he thereafter filed his claim as to one suit. Insurer had no duty to defend, and thus no breach, and judicial estoppel does not apply. Clear and enforceable policy language denied settlement consent rights to Plaintiff. (LAMPKIN and GARCIA, specially concurring.)

Pekin Insurance Company v. Equilon Enterprises LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 111529
Decision Date: 
Friday, November 9, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GARCIA
Underlying personal injury suit filed for explosion at gas station which occurred when Plaintiff lit a cigarette behind station while truck delivered gasoline to underground tanks of the station. Two endorsements in policy, when read together, are ambiguous, especially endorsement purporting to limit coverage to vicarious liability. Thus, insurer did not demonstrate that allegations of underlying complaint do not bring case potentially within policy coverage. (HALL, concurring; GORDON, specially concurring.)

United National Insurance Company v. 200 North Dearborn Partnership

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 100569
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 22, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
KARNEZIS
Insurance coverage dispute arose after underlying suit filed for death of building janitor from elevator malfunction. CGL policy additional insured endorsement did not identify by name the additional insured, but stated "blanket where required by contract." Insurer was not estopped from contesting coverage by defending two Defendants under reservation of rights and by filing declaratory judgment action. As two Defendants targeted their defense to insurer, there was no other "available" insurance for its policy to act as coinsurance, and insurer should have provided 100% of the defense. (HOFFMAN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. McFadden

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 120272
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN
Insureds, injured in auto accident, sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from their insurer. Insurer properly denied coverage, based on express "antistacking" language in policies prohibiting aggregation, or "stacking", of insured's five policies with insurer to provide total underinsured coverage in excess of amount set forth in single policy with highest policy limit of $100,000. Thus, $100,000 UIM coverage, when offset by tortfeasor's $250,000 policy limit, resulted in no UIM coverage. (HUDSON and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Vedder v. Continental Western Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (5th) 110583
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 29, 2012
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Montgomery Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
WELCH
Declaratory judgment action to determine primacy of coverage between insurers of Defendant in underlying PI suit, and of ambulance service for which Defendant worked as a volunteer when her personal vehicle collided with that of Plaintiff in PI suit. Defendant's policy is primary and other insurer's policy is excess; thus, Defendant's insurer is obligated to pay for entire defense of ambulance service. Excess insurer has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant until limits of primary policy are exhausted. (SPOMER and WEXSTTEN, concurring.)

Burress-Taylor v. American Security Insurance Company

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Consumer Fraud Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 110554
Decision Date: 
Friday, October 26, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
PALMER
Insured, whose home was damaged by fire, filed action under Consumer Fraud Act, and alleging breach of contract, to recover insurance proceeds for her claim. Consumer Fraud Act claim was separate and independent of breach of contract claim, and thus claim was not preempted by Section 155 of Insurance Code. Plaintiff properly raised three elements of a fraud claim. (GARCIA and GORDON, concurring.)