Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiffs-insureds alleging that defendant breached terms of insurance policy by failing to pay losses associated with house fire and for bad faith conduct in processing plaintiffs' insurance claim. Record supported defendant's contention that instant fire had suspicious origin, and that plaintiffs had failed to comply with their contractual obligation to provide defendant with requested documentation to support their insurance claim. Fact that plaintiffs provided some documents was irrelevant since: (1) plaintiffs were under duty to provide all requested documents or explain why they could not do so; (2) plaintiffs failed to provide many requested documents and further failed to complete requested sworn statement seeking information about said documents; and (3) plaintiffs cannot impose reasonableness limit on nature and extent of relevant information sought by defendant.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that insurance policy issued by plaintiff provided coverage in successful section 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution against defendant-insured where Dist. Ct. found that relevant date for purpose of coverage was 2002 when underlying plaintiff in section 1983 action was exonerated from criminal charges that formed basis of malicious prosecution claim. While instant plaintiff argued that coverage under other third-party insurance policy was operative since that policy was in effect in 1989 and 1990 when actual prosecution occurred, Ct. found that "occurrence" for purposes of coverage was date of exoneration since exoneration formed final element of malicious prosecution claim. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing under 215 ILCS 5/155 damages against plaintiff as part of defendant's counterclaim for vexatious refusal to defend defendant in underlying section 1983 action or to seek declaration as to coverage prior to trial in said action.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that pollution exclusion in subject general liability policy precluded coverage in underlying tort lawsuits against defendant-City insured, where said lawsuits alleged personal injuries arising out of perc contamination of water well owned by defendant and used to supply water to residents. Text of policy provided for exclusion of personal injury lawsuits arising out of wrongful release of pollutants, and fact that third-party was responsible for release of perc, or that amount of perc was below maximum level allowed by environmental regulations was irrelevant.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that defendant's insurance policy was responsible for providing insurance coverage for fatal accident under circumstances where, at time of accident, defendant's employee was driving plaintiff's vehicle to defendant's garage to provide repair services. While plaintiff's and defendant's insurance policies provided coverage for instant accident, plaintiff's insurance policy provided primary coverage where plaintiff was owner of vehicle. Ct. rejected plaintiff's argument that Illinois tow-truck insurance statute provided exception to Ill. rule making vehicle owner's policy primary over vehicle operator's policy, where Ct. held that said statute only required tow-truck operators to insure their own vehicles, as opposed to customer vehicles.

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).