Insurance Law

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.

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.)