Insurance Law

Miller v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Miller v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
Nos. 10-3839 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
June 29, 2012
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded
In action by plaintiffs seeking declaration that defendant-insurance company was required to indemnify insured corporation and two of its directors as defendants in underlying action by five individuals (some of whom were former directors of said corporation) alleging fraud, civil conspiracy and violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss after finding that defendant had no duty to defend or indemnify any part of underlying lawsuit based on "insured vs. insured" exclusion where three of five plaintiffs in underlying action, as former directors of corporation, were also "insureds" under applicable policy. While defendant was not required to defend or indemnify claims by insured plaintiffs, defendant must defend and indemnify non-insured plaintiffs based on allocation clause in policy.

Indiana Insurance v. Powerscreen of Chicago

Indiana Insurance v. Powerscreen of Chicago
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 103667
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 29, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM
Company's contractual obligation to perform necessary maintenance work satisfied the "ongoing operations" language under insurance policy's terms, and its alleged failure to do so places company within parameters of allegations in underlying injury suit by construction employee, thus triggering coverage. Although company hired subcontractor company to fix concrete crusher prior to accident, company retained full possession and control of crusher and had duty to repair and maintain equipment under rental agreement as "ongoing operation" for this subcontractor. Thus, subcontractor was additional insured under policy, and insurer owed duty to defend it in underlying suit. (QUINN and CONNORS, concurring.)

Progressive Direct Insurance v. Jungkans

Progressive Direct Insurance v. Jungkans
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (2d) 110939
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kendall Co.
Holding: 
Judgment for Plaintiff reversed; judgment for Defendant entered.
Justice: 
McLAREN
Plaintiff insurer denied UIM coverage to its insured, claiming that insured's failure to notify it in advance of settlement with adverse driver's insurer violated policy's cooperation clause. Court erred in granting summary judgment for UIM insurer. As insurer did not deny that UIM claim was within scope of policy, insured was not required to raise knowledge issue as affirmative defense. Insurer failed to prove that it suffered prejudice by settlement; evidence showed that adverse driver was judgment-proof, and a judgment-proof tortfeasor defeats claim of prejudice from insured's violation of cooperation clause. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

Lagestee-Mulder, Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Lagestee-Mulder, Inc. v. Consolidated Ins. Co.
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3730
Decision Date: 
June 26, 2012
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 that defendant wrongfully refused tender of defense in underlying lawsuit as required by defendant’s comprehensive general liability policy where underlying lawsuit alleged that plaintiff breached construction contract. Defendant’s duty to defend under instant policy was only triggered if underlying complaint alleged damage to something other than structure itself, and underlying action alleged plaintiff’s deficiencies in materials, workmanship and building’s construction that concerned alleged damages only to building itself.

Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-1232
Decision Date: 
June 25, 2012
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc,
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in finding in plaintiffs’ favor on breach of insurance contract action alleging that defendant-insurance company improperly failed to pay benefits under policy covering water damage to plaintiffs’ home, where said damage was discovered shortly after plaintiffs had purchased said home. Dist. Ct. could properly apply continuous trigger theory under Wisconsin law to determine that date of injury occurred during policy period and find that instant water damage qualified as accident under terms of policy when neither cause of water damage nor harm was intended, anticipated or expected by either party. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant was precluded from raising any policy exclusions since defendant had failed to notify plaintiffs of said exclusions prior to plaintiffs discovering water damage to their home.

Stendera v. State Farm

Stendera v. State Farm
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 111462
Decision Date: 
Friday, June 15, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
PALMER
Court entered summary judgment in favor of insurer, based on its finding that homeowners suffered no loss after fire that damaged home, as insurer had overpaid under its policy and was entitled to setoff in the amount insurer paid to mortgagee less the amount actually expended to repair home. Court properly found insurer was allowed to set off amount it paid to mortgagee less amount expended for repairs, but erred in granting summary judgment, as genuine issue of material fact remains as to amount actually expended for repairs. (R. GORDON and GARCIA, concurring.)

Edwards v. State Farm Insurance Company

Edwards v. State Farm Insurance Company
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 112176
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
QUINN
Contested, material facts as to implied waiver issue, which do not solely involve a legal interpretation of contract, preclude summary judgment on insured's breach of contract action against insurer, for duty to pay damages for auto accident that occurred after policy had lapsed and was cancelled for non-payment. One month after accident, and more than one month after cancellation, insured had tendered cash to insurer's clerk, who accepted and processed it and refunded to insured the amount due for period of time when policy was cancelled. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Ill. Insurance Guaranty Fund

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Skokie Castings, Inc. v. Ill. Insurance Guaranty Fund
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
May 30, 2012
Docket Number: 
No. 113873
District: 
1st Dist.
This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted plaintiff-self-insured employer's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant-Insurance Fund improperly terminated excess workers compensation payments (that had previously been provided to one of plaintiff's former employees pursuant to policy that plaintiff had with insolvent insurer) after notifying said employee that statutory $300,000 cap under 215 ILCS section 5/537.2 applied to employee's claim. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that: (1) self-insured employer's claim for indemnification against insolvent excess insurer constituted "workers compensation claim" for purposes of applying exception to $300,000 statutory cap found in 215 ILCS section 5/537.2; (2) defendant-Fund was liable for all excess payments paid to employee by plaintiff since excess insurer had gone into liquidation; and (3) defendant was liable for future excess payments to employee pursuant to her prior workers compensation award.

Kirk v. Allstate Insurance

Kirk v. Allstate Insurance
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Assignments
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (5th) 100573
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Madison Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
Motorcyclist was struck by driver of automobile owned by another person, resulting in leg amputation. Vehicle owner's insurer failed to notify driver of notice of suit, and did not provide driver with attorney until one year after suit filed. Jury verdict of $1.375 million against driver, with $100,000 setoff for policy limits paid by vehicle owner's insurer. Plaintiff nogoiated settlement with driver's own insurer and obtained assignment of rights from driver to sue vehicle owner's insurer for bad faith. Insurer filed bad faith claim against Plaintiff. Whether Plaintiff induced release is irrelevant; Plaintiff, as assignee, stands in driver's shoes, and insurer is not relieved of its duty to driver. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to bad faith, as insurer did not inform driver of settlement negotiations or that it was excluding him from release, or that he could be held personally responsible for excess. (WELCH and SPOMER, concurring.)

Pekin Insurance v. Tovar Snow Professionals

Pekin Insurance v. Tovar Snow Professionals
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Insurance
Citation
Case Number: 
2012 IL App (1st) 111136
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
QUINN
CGL insurer filed declaratory judgment action as to duty to defend its insured, a snow removal service's subcontractor, in slip and fall negligence suit for injuries. Insurer argued that its policy restricted additional coverage endorsements only to construction contracts, and not to snow removal, because the word "construction" appeared as a limiting adjective in endorsement heading in contract . Specific wording in text of endorsement contained no limitation on type of contract covered other than that contract be written. Actual text of policy language and purpose of policy brought suit within policy coverage despite presence of the word "construction" in heading of endorsement section. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)