Insurance Law

City Department of Revenue sent a City employee a notice that he owed City $895 for damage to City police car that employee hit. Notice created actual controversy ripe for adjudication, because notice states employer will be notified, and his indebtedness can be publicized per FOIA and on City website, and is subject to wage garnishment or discharge. Exhaustion of remedies inapplicable, because notice does not state employee's right to administrative hearing to contest debt, thus did not initiate administrative proceeding.

Hospital Risk Pool sued insurer for equitable contribution and equitable subrogation to recover portion of settlement it made on behalf of physician in malpractice suit, and insurer counterclaimed to recover its defense costs. Court improperly granted summary judgment for Risk Pool on its equitable subrogation claim against insurer, as Risk Pool had relinquished its right to recover in subrogation given totality of its affirmative conduct. Once physician sought coverage exclusively from Risk Pool, the Risk Pool had the sole responsibility to defend and indemnify physician, and insurer had duty for standby coverage in event Risk Pool refused to defend. Thus, error for court to have awarded insurer only half of its defense costs, because Risk Pool wrongly refused insurer's tender.

Residential children's facility and its HR Vice-President were named in federal ADA discrimination suit after EEOC claim by former employee for retaliatory discharge. Claims-made-and-reported policy. Facility received EEOC charge during first policy period but did not report it to insurer until second policy period, when it sent copy of federal court complaint to insurer, which was sufficient for actual notice of claim. Insurer estopped from asserting late-notice defense because they failed to either defend under reservation of rights or file declaratory action. Genuine dispute as to coverage precluded Section 155 damages against insurer.

Driver and passenger injured in auto accident in Galena with underinsured motorist. Summary judgment for UIM insurer proper, where trial court found setoff provisions of policy not ambiguous, and only $100,000 in total UIM benefits remained for all defendant after setoff by $200,000 total paid to both by other driver's insurer. UIM split limits of $300,000 per person/$300,000 per accident, but with setoff provision that these limits would be set off by aggregate amount paid by tortfeasor.