You searched for illinois - Page 2 of 14 - The Insurance & Reinsurance Report

December 6, 2016 Duty to Defend

No Magic Words Needed To Trigger Application of the Construction Contract Anti-Indemnification Statute Says Illinois Appellate Court

In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Designed Equipment Acquisition Corp., 2016 IL App (1st) 151689, the Illinois Appellate Court examined a common issue for insurance carriers in disputes involving construction site injuries. In particular, the Appellate Court provided helpful clarification with respect to the application of the Construction Contract Indemnification for Negligence Act (Act), also known as the anti-indemnification statute.

The circumstances at issue involved a rental agreement between Abel Building & Restoration and Designed Equipment Acquisition Corporation, whereby Designed leased from Abel scaffolding materials. …

November 30, 2016 Duty to Defend

Seventh Circuit Recognizes Illinois Law to Allow Extrinsic Evidence in Evaluating an Insurer’s Duty to Defend

The Seventh Circuit recently handed down a decision encouraging Illinois courts to consider evidence beyond the complaint and the insurance policy when evaluating an insurer’s duty to defend. In Landmark American Insurance Co. v. Hilger, 838 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2016), the Seventh Circuit reviewed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings favor of a purported insured in a declaratory judgment suit filed by Landmark American Insurance Company. At issue was whether Peter Hilger was covered as an insured in connection with lawsuits filed …

September 15, 2016 Uncategorized

Insurers Beware: The Illinois Department of Insurance Issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Regarding Knowledge of Misrepresentations and False Warranties

In August, the Illinois Department of Insurance (DOI) proposed its second rule on misrepresentations and false warranties in less than two years. Citing various concerns, the DOI withdrew its December 2014 proposed rule nearly a year ago, in October 2015. The impetus for the new proposed rule appears to be the DOI’s perception that insurers are not considering “readily available information” before seeking to rescind insurance policies.

The new proposed rule on misrepresentations would be promulgated as Ill. Admin. Code tit. 50, § 941.20. Section …

August 29, 2016 Duty to Defend

No, No, No: No Accident, No Property Damage, No Duty to Defend Under Illinois Law

Westfield Insurance Co. v. West Van Buren, LLC, et al., 2016 IL App (1st) 140862 represents a continuation of Illinois law in the context of an insurer’s duty to defend construction defect claims. As articulated in Westfield, accidental events are required to trigger a duty to defend and shoddy workmanship does not constitute property damage. In addition, since the underlying complaint did not seek damages for any personal property damage, the Illinois Appellate Court held Westfield Insurance Company had no duty to defend …

June 10, 2016 Duty to Defend / Personal and Advertising Injury

Illinois Appellate Court Rejects Coverage for Junk Fax Class Action Settlement and Calls TCPA Class Action Attorneys to Task

The Illinois Appellate Court recently offered greater protection to insurance companies from liability emanating from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) and fervently condemned the reality of class action settlements rewarding only class counsel. In First Mercury Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Security Services., 2016 IL App (1st) 143924 (May 18, 2016), the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that First Mercury had no duty to indemnify the class (as assignees) with respect to a settlement reached in the underlying junk fax …

March 15, 2016 Policy Conditions, Considerations, Construction, and Formation

Not Better Late Than Never: Illinois Appellate Court Finds in Favor of Insurer on Late Notice Defense

The Illinois Appellate Court, in AMCO Insurance Co. v. Erie Insurance Co., ruled in favor of a CGL insurer based on an additional insured’s violation of the policy’s notice condition. This case represents a significant victory for insurers, which are constantly searching for the enforcement of conditions precedent to coverage.

The Appellate Court held in favor of Erie Insurance Co. based on a late notice defense. As background, on March 15, 2007, Smith filed a negligence action against Hartz Construction Co., KT Richards Construction …

January 26, 2016 First Party Property

Which Came First? Turns Out, It May Not Matter. Illinois Appeals Court Weighs in on Anticoncurrent-Causation Clause for the First Time

For the first time, an Illinois court addressed an anti-concurrent causation clause. In Bozek v. Erie Ins., 2015 IL App.(2d) 150155 (Dec. 17, 2015) , an Illinois appellate court held a homeowner’s insurance policy’s anti-concurrent causation clause precluded coverage because an excluded event, hydrostatic pressure, contributed to a single loss (the lifting of a pool out of the ground). The plaintiffs incurred damage to their in-ground swimming pool after a heavy rain storm. The large amount of rain saturated the soil, producing significant uplift …

December 29, 2015 Duty to Defend / Personal and Advertising Injury

Another Nail in the Junk Fax Coffin: Wisconsin Joins Illinois, California, Michigan, and Oklahoma in Finding No Coverage for TCPA Suits

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held in a recent decision that a standard TCPA exclusion precludes coverage for all causes of action brought by the plaintiff that emanated from the unauthorized sending of faxes. This includes a common law conversion cause of action, as well as a cause of action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

As background, in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Easy PC Solutions, LLC, No. 2014AP2657, 2015 Wisc. App. LEXIS 855 (Wisc. Ct. App. Dec. …

November 18, 2015 Industry News

Exceptionally Navigating Abstention: Northern District of Illinois Applies the Colorado River Doctrine to Stay Arbitration

An insurer and a policyholder entered into an agreement, or didn’t they? Either way, the Northern District of Illinois doesn’t have to decide because “exceptional circumstances” triggered the Colorado River abstention doctrine, allowing the court to stay the case asking it to determine whether the agreement existed.

A policyholder and one of its insurers began having disputes about who had to provide coverage for certain claims. As a result of those disputes, the policyholder and the insurer allegedly entered into an agreement in 2007, where …