Insurance Law

Senate Bill 1912

Topic: 
Claim for money damages
(Raoul, D-Chicago) makes several changes to the settlement of a claim for money damages. (1) Requires the settling defendant to tender a release within 14 days of the settlement. (2) If court approval of the settlement is required, it requires the plaintiff to timely tender to the settling defendant of a copy of the court order approving the settlement. (3) Requires the plaintiff to tender to settling defendant documentation about a known third-party lienholder or subrogation interest. (4) Requires a settling defendant to pay all sums due to the plaintiff within 21 days of tender of the executed release and lienholder documentation. (4) Awards interest under Section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to pay within 21 days from plaintiff’s tender of the executed release unless good cause is shown otherwise. (5) Senate Bill 1912 doesn’t apply to actions against the State, State employees, or anyone else who may be indemnified under the State Employee Indemnification Act. It is on third reading in the Senate.
View Full Text of Legislation

West American Co. v. Midwest Open MRI, Inc.

West American Co. v. Midwest Open MRI, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 121034
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CONNORS
Court properly help that insurer owed its insured no duty to defend or indemnify in suit filed against insured by a competitor, alleging violations of Consumer Fraud Act. Complaint did not allege accidental conduct or consequences and thus did not allege an "occurrence" as defined by policy, and policy excluded coverage for acts done intentionally by or at direction of insured. Where insurer has no duty to defend because no coverage or potential for coverage under the policy, estoppel doctrine does not apply. (HARRIS and QUINN, concurring.)

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rodriguez

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rodriguez
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 121388
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 28, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Court properly entered summary judgment for insurer in declaratory judgment actions, ruling that policy provides no comprehensive coverage for vehicles which were, during policy period, seized by law enforcement authorities as stolen vehicles. Seizure of Defendants' stolen vehicles did not constitute "damage to" the vehicles and thus was not a "loss" for purposes of comprehensive coverage under policies. (FITZGERALD SMITH, concurring; PUCINSKI, specially concurring.)

Guzman v. 7513 West Madison Street, Inc.

Guzman v. 7513 West Madison Street, Inc.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2013 IL App (1st) 122161
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 29, 2013
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Certified question answered; remanded.
Justice: 
HOWSE
(Court opinion corrected 4/11/13.) Where dram shop is being defended by Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund after insurer is declared insolvent and Plaintiffs have recovered from UIM, from Defendant's auto insurer, and/or group health insurer, and verdict in excess of Defendant's maximum under Dram Shop Act, the reduction for "other insurance" recoveries per Section 546(a) of Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund Act is applied against maximum dram shop liability to each Plaintiff. (McBRIDE and PALMER, concurring.)

Bankmanagers Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Bankmanagers Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co.
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

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

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

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
American Access Casualty Co. v. Reyes
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.