Insurance Law

House Bill 4676

Topic: 
Consumer Remedies Protection Act
(Golar, D-Chicago) voids consumer adhesion contracts as a matter of public policy and creates a private right of action for consumers whose rights are violated. Authorizes recovery of actual and statutory damages in addition to attorney's fees and costs. Scheduled for hearing next Wednesday in House Judiciary Committee I.
View Full Text of Legislation

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schilli Transportation Services, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Schilli Transportation Services, Inc.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-2307
Decision Date: 
February 13, 2012
Federal District: 
N.D. Ind., Hammond Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking reimbursement from defendants-three insureds for costs and settlement amounts plaintiff spent on six underlying claims where plaintiff alleged that said reimbursements were required to satisfy $100,000 per claim deductible contained in relevant policy, and where Dist. Ct. found that each defendant was jointly and severally liable for deductibles associated with all six claims. Although plaintiff had valid claims against individual defendants for payment of said deductibles, policy language was ambiguous as to whether defendants were jointly and severally liable for all deductibles since policy did not contain express language making each insured jointly and several liable for all claims, and since policy contained "separation of protected persons" clause which could be construed as making insured responsible only for deductible generated on its own underlying claim(s).

Katz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Katz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 110931
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Justice: 
HARRIS
Court properly entered summary judgment in favor of insurer of its policyholder who was in auto accident. Insurer was the only underinsurer, and thus cannot be considered to provide excess coverage. Court properly calculated setoffs of underinsured motorist benefits, of amounts of settlement for underlying action and for workers' compensation benefits received by policyholder. (QUINN and CONNORS, concurring.)

House Bill 5198

Topic: 
Contractual litigation
(Biss, D-Skokie) allows a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the defendant if the defendant prevails in an action to enforce a contract if the contract allows for the recovery of attorney's fees to enforce the contract. Introduced and assigned to House Rules Committee for referral to a substantive committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Jones

Standard Mutual Insurance Company v. Jones
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (4th) 110526
Decision Date: 
Friday, February 3, 2012
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Brown Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
POPE
Insurer filed complaint for rescission, alleging that auto policyholders failed to disclose on application that two sons (age 16 and 20) resided with them. Younger son was driving vehicle when he was in auto accident. Court properly found that plain language of Section 154 of Illinois Insurance Code barred insurer from rescinding policy, as policy had been in effect for more than one policy term. Effective date of policy, not discovery of misrepresentation, triggers start of time period for insurer to move to rescind a policy. (KNECHT, concurring; TURNER, specially concurring.)

Senate Bill 2952

Topic: 
Statute of repose for attorneys
(Rezin, R-Peru) creates an exception to the statute of repose for attorney malpractice that currently limits actions to no later than six years after the date on which the attorney's act or omission occurred. The exception is if the client is still represented by the attorney or the attorney knowingly conceals the act or omission. If that occurs, the limitation does begin to run until the person is no longer represented by the attorney or until the client should have known of the injury. Just introduced and referred to the Committee on Assignments for assignment to a substantive committee.
View Full Text of Legislation

Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Whitehead

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Country Preferred Ins. Co. v. Whitehead
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
January 25, 2012
Docket Number: 
No. 113365
District: 
3rd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly denied defendant-insured's motion to arbitrate defendant's uninsured motorist claim arising out of defendant's automobile accident that occurred in Wisc. where plaintiff-insurance company alleged that defendant was barred from pursuing such claim because she had not requested arbitration within 2-year policy limitation period? Appellate Court, in reversing trial court, found that 2-year limitation period violated public policy as it applied to defendant because it effectively shortened applicable 3-year Wisc. statute of limitations period that applied to accidents occurring in Wisc., and because it placed defendant in substantially different position than if other driver had been insured. (Dissent filed.)

Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. v. Herrin

Columbia Mutual Insurance Co. v. Herrin
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (5th) 100037
Decision Date: 
Thursday, January 12, 2012
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Saline Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
(Court opinion corrected 1/19/12.) Vehicle was struck by underinsured motorist who failed to stop at intersection. After consolidated bench trial, court ordered distribution of UIM-motorist proceeds. Court erred in applying ratio method of distribution without considering the amounts of UIM coverage which vehicle occupants had available exclusively to them before dividing up host vehicle's UIM coverage. Court was within its discretion in using as valuations for each person's injuries the amounts set during prior bench trial which distributed bodily injury liability proceeds from at-fault driver's policy. (WELCH and WEXSTTEN, concurring.)

Owners Insurance Company v. Seamless Gutter Corp.

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 082924
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 14, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
HALL
(Court opinion corrected 12/27/11.) Insurers sought declaratory judgment that general contractor and subcontractor were not entitled to coverage under CGH and commercial umbrella policies issued to gutter company. General contractor was not an insured under either policy, and thus insurers had no duty to defend it in underlying personal injury suit filed by employee of general contractor who sustained injury when he fell on unnatural accumulation of ice at construction site. That CGL insurer did not question general contractor's status as an insured in refusing tender of its defense did not raise genuine issue of material fact. Employee exclusion in CGL policy applied, and thus insurer had no duty to defend in third-party suit. (LAMPKIN and ROCHFORD, concurring.)

Nat'l Production Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Cigna Corp.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Nat'l Production Workers Union Ins. Trust v. Cigna Corp.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-2948
Decision Date: 
December 30, 2011
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-insured alleging breach of insurance contract where plaintiff asserted that defendant had failed to include life insurance benefit in group life insurance policy that gave plaintiff one-half of all death benefits granted to beneficiaries covered by policy. Record showed that plaintiff's representative signed application for policy that omitted requested benefit, and that plaintiff made several premium payments on said policy. Moreover, said signature defeated plaintiff's claim that no valid contract existed even though defendant's representative made after-the-fact observation that there had been no meeting of minds with respect to instant group life insurance policy. Ct. further rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant should have known that authority of plaintiff's insurance agent did not extend to procurement of materially deviating policy where terms of signed application indicated that plaintiff's payment of premiums after delivery of policy constituted acceptance of policy terms.