Insurance Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for breach of contract relating to an insurance policy issued by the defendant for a property owned by the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint was untimely because it was filed after the contract’s one-year suit limitations period. The appellate court affirmed, finding that plaintiff was bound to the agreed-upon terms of the policy’s suit limitations provision. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring)

In a declaratory judgment action, plaintiff appealed from a circuit court order granting summary judgment to the defendant which found that plaintiff was not entitled to additional insurance proceeds for incident-related losses and lost rental income stemming from a break-in that happened at plaintiff’s rental property that was insured by the defendant. Plaintiff argued on appeal that there was a genuine issue of material fact on the extent of actual damages plaintiff experienced as a result of the break-in, as well as reasonable repair costs, and whether defendant breached the terms of the insurance policy. The appellate court found no error and affirmed. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring)

In an insurance coverage dispute, defendants appealed after the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff insurance company. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court correctly entered judgment in favor of the insurance company because it owed no indemnity obligation for the settlement of the underlying lawsuit where the insured was not “legally obligated” to pay anything under the terms of the settlement. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from the circuit court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking underinsured motorist coverage from the defendant insurance company. The trial court dismissed the complaint as untimely. On appeal, plaintiff argued that his complaint was timely because the two-year limitations period was tolled by his request for arbitration and by the Illinois Insurance Code and that the insurance company was estopped from asserting the limitations period. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the insurance company was estopped from asserting the limitations period where the insurance company waited to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the insurance policy until after the expiration of the limitations and that this amounted to “estoppel by silence.” (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)