Insurance Law

Universal Underwriters Insurance v. LKQ Smart Parts

Universal Underwriters Insurance v. LKQ Smart Parts
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 101723
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 16, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
EPSTEIN
Insurer filed declaratory judgment action, seeking declaration that its liability insurance policy did not cover spoliation of evidence claim brought against its insured and another insurer, arising out of passenger's death in single-car rollover accident. Car was destroyed while at insured's salvage yard. Insured describes destruction of car, and the plaintiff's resulting inability to use it in underlying suit, as the "loss" under the policy, and thus damages Plaintiff seeks are damages resulting from destruction of car and loss of use of it. Policy requires only that loss to covered vehicle must occur, and does not require that vehicle owner must file suit. No conflict between Wisconsin and Illinois law as to interpretation of policy, and thus Illinois law is applied as law of forum. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring.)

Tabatabai v. West Coast Life Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Tabatabai v. West Coast Life Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-1170
Decision Date: 
December 21, 2011
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant breached terms of conditional receipt agreement calling for defendant to provide $500,000 in life insurance upon plaintiff satisfying certain steps in application process, where defendant eventually denied said life insurance coverage upon discovery that plaintiff had brain tumor. Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that doctrine of prevention applied where, according to plaintiff, defendant delayed notifying plaintiff of need for second urine sample, and where defendant discovered existence of plaintiff's brain tumor during said delay since: (1) plaintiff had other medical factors such as elevated cholesterol reading that would have disqualified plaintiff from said insurance coverage; and (2) record indicated that defendant had timely notified plaintiff of need for second urine sample prior to discovery of brain tumor.

Pryor v. United Equitable Insurance Company

Pryor v. United Equitable Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Arbitration
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 110544
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 16, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
R.E. GORDON
Plaintiff sued his insurer to confirm uninsured motorist arbitration award to judgment and alleged bad faith under Section 155 of Insurance Code in delaying payment on award. Insurer had paid arbitration award after being served with the complaint, and 25 days after Plaintiff had faxed executed release of physician's lien and requested payment. Court properly dismissed complaint, as Plaintiff did not allege facts indicating that insurer had attitude suggestive of vexatiously delaying payment, and suit was filed within 90-day period when insurer could move to vacate or modify award. (GARCIA and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Illinois Tool Works v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company

Illinois Tool Works v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 093084
Decision Date: 
Monday, December 12, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
KARNEZIS
Plaintiff company filed declaratory judgment action against two insurers for declaration of duty to defend company in underlying suit by tenant for groundwater and soil contamination. Plaintiff had been assigned benefits of insurance policies in purchase agreement; seller had agreed to indemnify Plaintiff for up to $25 million, and purchase price was $80 million, which indicates seller's intent to assign policy benefits to Plaintiff. Once a covered loss has occurred, insured's assignment of right to coverage or defense does not require consent from insurer, as assignment is essentially assignment of payment of claim already accrued. Assignment occurred after the loss; and loss was not underlying suit, but contamination. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

Landmark Insurance Company v. NIP Group

Landmark Insurance Company v. NIP Group
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 101155
Decision Date: 
Monday, December 5, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
ROCHFORD
Insurer filed declaratory judgment action as to obligation to defend or indemnify insured, an insurance complany in class action suit filed against it for sending unsolicited advertisements via fax. Court properly denied forum non conveniens motion. Court improperly refused to stay a portion of suit, under Peppers doctrine, as any determination of applicability of policy's intentional acts exclusion is premature while class action suit is ongoing. Whether insured's conduct was intentional is directly relevant to whether it can be held liable for intentional tort of conversion, and to whether it is subject to treble damages per federal ATCPA claim. As exclusion removed only certain types of advertising from coverage, claims arising out of other types of advertising must have been intended to be covered as advertising liaiblity, including fax advertisements. (HOFFMAN and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Westfield Insurance Company

American Family Mutual Insurance v. Westfield Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (4th) 110088
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
McLean Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
COOK
(Court opinion corrected 12/14/11.) Minor, age 12 at time of incident, was convicted of criminal damage to property for recklessly setting fire to company. Minor was insured under her grandparents' farm-ranch policy. Company's insurer sued minor's father in subrogation, and trial court found minor negligent and awarded damages to insurer. Grandparents' insurer had sent reservation-of-rights letter to minor's father after learning that suit would be filed, stating that its intentional-act exclusion may limit or deny coverage. Collateral estoppel does not apply, as issue decided in prior adjudication is not identical with present suit. As insurer and insured would have profitted from a finding that insured was not negligent, and minor's conduct could not have been found intentional, insurer's reservation-of-rights letter was properly sent, and insurer was not obligated to settle. (TURNER and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

A-1 Roofing Company v. Navigators Insurance Company

A-1 Roofing Company v. Navigators Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (1st) 100878
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 24, 2011
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
CAHILL
(Court opinion corrected 11/21/11.) General contractor for roof resurfacing job at high school was the only additional insured under subcontractor's CGL policy which had additional insured endorsement stating that coverage would not be provided for any claim arising out of sole negligence of any additional insured. Employee of another subcontractor was killed while operating boom-lift leased by insured's subcontractor. Negligence allegations in underlying complaint were not exclusively directed at general contractor, and thus sole negligence exclusion was not triggered to negate coverage. Insurer, which failed to do anything other than respond to tender with letter, is estopped from asserting policy defenses to coverage. (GARCIA and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Public Act 97-623

Topic: 
Medical records of deceased family members
(Wilhelmi, D-Joliet;Brady, R-Bloomington) creates a procedure and statutory form to allow certain family members to get the medical records of deceased family members without being forced to open an estate. A surviving spouse may make a written request for a copy of his or her deceased spouse’s records if: (1) An executor or administrator has not been appointed for the deceased’s estate; or (2) The deceased did not appoint an agent under a power of attorney for health care who was authorized to act for the deceased after death, and the deceased had not specifically objected to disclosure in writing. If there is no surviving spouse, the records may be released if requested in writing by (1) an adult son or daughter of the deceased, (2) a parent of the deceased, or (3) an adult brother or sister of the deceased. Senate Bill 1694 also amends the Illinois Power of Attorney for Health Care to allow an agent to access the principal’s medical records after the principal’s death if the principal has delegated that authority in the power of attorney. This Act took effect November 23, 2011.
View Full Text of Legislation

Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Mahoney

Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Mahoney
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (2d) 101279
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
(Court opinion corrected 11/8/11.) Plaintiff, who owned a garage where another person was working on his motorcycle, was injured while test-driving the motorcycle at the request of its owner, when the brake pedal its owner had welded on to cycle snapped off. Garage owner sued motorcycle owner for his injuries, and his parents' homeowner's insurer filed declaratory judgment action. Negligent welding of brake pedal would not have proximately caused injuries had the motorcycle not been in motion at time of accident, and was thus not "wholly independent" of the use of the motorcycle. Thus, insurer had no duty to defend, per policy's motor vehicle exclusion. (HUTCHINSON and BURKE, concurring.)

USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. McInerney

USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. McInerney
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2011 IL App (2d) 100970
Decision Date: 
Monday, October 31, 2011
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Lake Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SCHOSTOK
Homeowners sought rescission of real estate contract or compensatory damages due to extensive water infiltration and flooding in basement after purchase, and sued sellers of home for negligent misrepresentation in disclosure report. Sellers tendered defense to their family liability policy. Complaint alleged property damage and bodily injury as result of occurrence at least potentially covered by policy, and thus insurer had duty to defend sellers in underlying suit. Remedy sought was not contract based, and thus contract exclusion is inapplicable. (McLAREN and HUDSON, concurring.)