SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS
|
|
- Arnold Heath
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 10 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1530 Chicago, Illinois Fax: SEMINAR May 1, 2007 SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS Gregory G. Vacala Managing Partner, Civil Litigation Department Direct Line: (312)
2 SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS: DEFINITION II. THE JOHN BURNS DOCTRINE A. Primary Insurance B. Selective Targeted Tenders of Excess General Rule...3 Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion III. DEACTIVATING A SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDER...5 IV. RIGHTS OF THE TARGETED OR SELECTED CARRIERS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR SUBROGATION A. Distinguish: Contribution, Indemnification and Subrogation B. Equitable Contribution: Generally a Remedy of Primary vs. Primary; or, Excess vs. Excess C. Equitable Subrogation: Generally a Remedy of Excess vs. Primary D. The Targeted Tender Prohibits Equitable Contribution...9 V. ONLY THE INSURED CAN TARGET A TENDER VI. STANDARD PROVISIONS IN LIABILITY POLICIES DO NOT PREVENT A TARGETED TENDER A. Other Insurance Clause...11 B. Duty to Cooperate Clause...11 VII. TARGETED/SELECTIVE TENDERS AND EXCESS...11 ii
3 VIII. AVOIDING WAIVER OF CONTRIBUTION OF SUBROGATION RIGHTS iii
4 I. SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS: DEFINITION A selective or targeted tender is an insured s right to pick and choose which of its insurers will be required to defend and indemnify it. The selective tender rule, as recognized by Illinois courts, gives an insured covered by multiple concurrent policies the right to choose or select which insurer(s) will defend and indemnify it with respect to a specific claim. The insured s choice is generally from two or more co-primary policies which exist by contractual risk transfer provisions. Our courts have recognized as paramount the right of the insured to seek or not to seek an insurer s participation in a claim as the insured chooses. Institute of London v. Hartford Insurance, 234 Ill.App.3d 70 at 79, 599 N.E.2d at 1316 (1 st Dist. 1992). The courts have reasoned that an insureds fear of cancellation or premium hike justifies the ability to target a tender. For instance, in Cincinnati Companies v. West American Insurance Co., 183 Ill.2d 317, 701 N.E.2d 499, 233 Ill.Dec. 649 (1998). The court stated: It is true that an insured may choose to forgo an insurer s assistance for various reasons, such as the insured s fear that premiums would be increased, or the policy canceled, in the future. See Institute of London, 234 Ill.App.3d at Moreover, an insured s ability to forego that assistance should be protected. 183 Ill.2d at 326, 701 N.E.2d at 503. Selective or targeted tenders also apply to excess once an insured has exhausted its concurrent primary insurance coverage. After all primary coverage is triggered, the insured may selectively tender its indemnity to concurrent excess insurers. Illinois doesn t follow vertical exhaustion. In - 1 -
5 Illinois, prior to a targeted tender to the excess; all primary coverage available must be exhausted. North River Insurance v. Grinnell Mutual, 369 Ill.App.3d 563, 860 N.E.2d 460 (2007). A. Primary Insurance II. THE JOHN BURNS DOCTRINE Illinois practitioners often refer to a targeted or selective tender by reference to John Burns. In John Burns Construction Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co., 189 Ill.2d 570, 244 Ill.Dec. 912, 727 N.E.2d 211 (2000), the appellant, John Burns Construction Company (Burns), entered into a subcontract with Sal Barba Asphalt Paving, Inc. (Barba), to pave a parking lot. The subcontract required Barba to maintain liability insurance for Burns. Pursuant to the contract, Barba had Burns added as an additional insured to its policy with its insurer, Indiana Insurance Company (Indiana). An individual subsequently fell in the aforementioned parking lot and alleged that his injuries occurred as a result of the parking lot being improperly paved. The individual filed suit against Burns. John Burns, 189 Ill.2d at 571. Burns initially tendered its defense to Indiana. However, Indiana refused to accept the tender. In response, Burns tendered its defense to its own insurer, Royal Insurance Company (Royal). Thereafter, Burns and Royal filed an action for a declaratory judgment that Indiana defend and indemnify Burns in the underlying action. In a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, Indiana argued Royal was required to share the defense since the Indiana policy contained an other insurance provision. Indiana requested that Royal contribute equally to the costs it incurred. John Burns, 189 Ill.2d at
6 The John Burns court determined that Burns had the right to choose which insurer would be required to defend and indemnify it in the underlying action and that there was nothing in the relevant policy which limited Burns right to make this choice (John Burns, 189 Ill.2d at 574). The court stated that it agreed with the reasoning of the decisions reached in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Royal Insurance Co. of America, 301 Ill.App.3d 720, 234 Ill.Dec. 916, 704 N.E.2d 74 (1998); and Alcan United, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 303 Ill.App. 3d 72, 236 Ill.Dec. 560, 707 N.E.2d 687 (1999), which involved other insurance clauses. Quoting from the Alcan United decision, the John Burns court stated: Thus, in accordance with Bituminous Casualty and Institute of London, we hold an other insurance clause in a policy will not automatically reach into coverages provided under other policies merely because such other policies are in existence. The insured still must be given the right to determine whether it wishes to invoke its rights to such other coverages before those coverages become accessible under the other insurance provision of a triggered policy. John Burns, 189 Ill.2d at , quoting Alcan United, 303 Ill.App.3d at 81. B. Selective Targeted Tenders of Excess General Rule Questions often arise as to whether an insured may target both primary and excess policies. For example, an insured has primary coverage with A, B & C insurers and excess with X, Y & Z. May the insured demand that B & Y are triggered to the exclusion of A & C, X & Z? The answer is that it depends on whether the jurisdiction follows vertical or horizontal exhaustion. Illinois applies horizontal exhaustion. Illinois law does not allow vertical exhaustion. North River Insurance Co. v. Grinnell Mutual, 369 Ill.App. 563, 860 N.E.2d 460, 307 Ill.Dec. 806 (2006). Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion - 3 -
7 Horizontal exhaustion involves an insured who has multiple primary and excess policies covering a common risk. If a covered claim occurs, the theory of horizontal exhaustion requires the insured to exhaust all primary policy limits before invoking excess coverage. In contrast to horizontal exhaustion, vertical exhaustion allows an insured to select coverage from an excess insurer as long as the insurance policies immediately beneath that excess policy, as identified in the excess policies declaration page, have been exhausted, regardless of whether other primary insurance may apply. As to the basis for the application of horizontal exhaustion, Illinois law draws a clear distinction between primary and excess umbrella insurance policies. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, 337 Ill.App.3d 435, , 786 N.E.2d 582, 272 Ill.Dec. 43 (2003); New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 296 Ill.App.3d 701, 705, 696 N.E.2d 22, 231 Ill.Dec. 293 (1998); American Country Insurance Co. v. Hanover Insurance Co., 293 Ill.App.3d 1025, 1032, 689 N.E.2d 186, 228 Ill.Dec. 314 (1998); Illinois Emcasco Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 139 Ill.App.3d 130, 134, 487 N.E.2d 110, 93 Ill.Dec. 666 (1985). An umbrella policy is unique in that it always remains excess over and above other contracts with few exceptions and thus could not be activated until all primary coverage is exhausted. Illinois Emcasco, 139 Ill.App.3d at Based on prior authority from the appellate and supreme courts, Illinois declines to apply the vertical exhaustion rule. It holds that the selective tender rule should be applied to circumstances where concurrent insurance coverage exists for additional insureds. See American National Fire Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 343 Ill.App.3d 93, 109, 796 N.E.2d 1133, 277 Ill.Dec. 767 (2003), (Quinn, J., specially concurring) ( [T]he targeted tender rule should be limited to instances involving parties which are additional insureds under concurrent - 4 -
8 primary policies ). To the extent that defense and indemnity costs exceed the primary limits of the selected insurer, the deselected insurer or insurers primary policies must answer for the loss prior to invoking coverage under an excess policy. The selective tender rule is properly limited to concurrent insurance coverage. Kajima and Tokio Marine Insurance v. St. Paul, 368 Ill.App.3d 665, 856 N.E.2d 452, 2006 Ill.App.LEXIS 837; 305 Ill.Dec III. DEACTIVATING A SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDER An insured may deactivate a tender with an insurer previously selected for purposes of invoking coverage with another insurer. In Alcan United, Inc. v. West Bend, 303 Ill.App.3d 72, 236 Ill.Dec. 560, 707 N.E.2d 687 (1999), the court also held that the insured s right to choose encompasses the right to deactivate coverage with an insurer previously selected for purposes of invoking exclusive coverage with another insurer. Alcan United, 303 Ill.App.3d at 82. Furthermore, the court in Richard Marker Associates v. Pekin Insurance Co., 318 Ill.App.3d 1137, , 252 Ill.Dec. 922, 743 N.E.2d 1078 (2001), relying on the decision reached in Alcan United, also determined that an insured, who had tendered his defense to two insurers, had the right to subsequently withdraw ( deactivate ) his tender from one insurer and forego its coverage. Richard Marker, 318 Ill.App.3d at See also: Legion Insurance v. Empire Fire, 354 Ill.App 3d 699 (2004)
9 IV. RIGHTS OF THE TARGETED OR SELECTED CARRIERS FOR CONTRIBUTION OR SUBROGATION Advice is often requested from selected or targeted insurers as to their rights against the nontargeted carriers who have policies providing coverage. Generally the targeted carrier is the carrier provided under the contract. The non-targeted carrier is the insured s own carrier. A. Distinguish: Contribution, Indemnification and Subrogation The terms contribution, indemnification and subrogation are often used interchangeably, but there are distinct differences between them. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 217:5 (rev. 2004). The remedies of contribution and indemnity are mutually exclusive, and contribution is prohibited where a party has a right to indemnity. 18 C.J.S. Contribution 26, at 30 (1990). Contribution as it pertains to insurance law is an equitable principle arising among coinsurers which permits one insurer who has paid the entire loss, or greater than its share of the loss, to be reimbursed from other insurers who are also liable for the same loss. Cincinnati Cos. v. West American Insurance Co., 183 Ill.2d 317, 322, 701 N.E.2d 499, 233 Ill.Dec. 649 (1998); Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co., 82 Ill.App.3d 1003, 1005, 403 N.E.2d 680, 38 Ill.Dec. 449 (1980); 15 Couch on Insurance 217:5 (rev. 2004). Contribution applies to multiple, concurrent insurance situations and is only available where the concurrent policies insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks. Royal Globe, 82 Ill.App.3d at 1005; 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:3 (rev. 2004). These elements must be met before the insurance can be considered concurrent or double. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:3 (rev. 2004). Accordingly, when two insurers cover - 6 -
10 separate and distinct risks there can be no contribution among them. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:3 (rev. 2004). In contrast to contribution, subrogation and indemnification are devices for placing the entire burden for a loss on the party ultimately liable or responsible for it and by whom it should have been discharged. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 217:5 (rev. 2004). Indemnification differs from subrogation in that the entity seeking indemnification does so in its own right, while in the latter the subrogee succeeds to another s right to payment. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 217:5 (rev. 2004). It is well settled that the doctrine of equitable contribution is not applicable to primary/excess insurer issues. River City, 325 Ill.App.3d at 274 (it is well established that excess insurers cannot seek equitable contribution from primary insurers); Schal Bovis, 315 Ill.App.3d at 363 (same); Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance, 213 Ill.2d 307, 821 N.E.2d 269 (2003); Home Indemnity Co. v. General Accident Insurance Co. of America, 213 Ill.App.3d 319, 321, 572 N.E.2d 962, 157 Ill.Dec. 498 (1991); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 198 Ill.App.3d 950, 955, 556 N.E.2d 671, 145 Ill.Dec. 53 (1990); Reliance National Indemnity Co. v. General Star Indemnity Co., 72 Cal. App.4 th 1063, 1078, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 627, 635 (1999); 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:7 (rev. 2004). This is because by definition the policies do not cover the same risks the protections under the excess policy do not begin until those of the primary policy cease. Home Indemnity, 213 Ill.App.3d at 321; United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 198 Ill.App.3d at 955. B. Equitable Contribution: Generally a Remedy of Primary vs. Primary; or, Excess vs. Excess In insurance law, the principle of equitable contribution permits an insurer which has paid the entire loss to recover reimbursement from other insurers who are also liable for the loss
11 Cincinnati Cos. v. West American Ins. Co., 183 Ill.2d 317, 322, 701 N.E.2d 499 (1998); Institute of London Underwriters v. Hartford Fire Ins., 234 Ill.App.3d 70, 73, 599 N.E.2d 1311 (1 st Dist. 1992); Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 82 Ill.App.3d 1003, 1005, 403 N.E.2d 680 (1980). In addition, authority exists for the proposition that an insurer cannot bring an equitable contribution action until it has paid the claim or debt. Institute of London Underwriters v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 234 Ill.App.3d 70, 78, 599 N.E.2d 1311 (1 st Dist. 1992) [payment of the debt to the third party claimant is prerequisite to the right of bringing an action for equitable contribution]; Providence Washington Ins. Co. v. American Bridge, 200 Ill.App.3d 597, 600, 558 N.E.2d 396 (1990). C. Equitable Subrogation: Generally a Remedy of Excess vs. Primary The elements of an equitable subrogation claim in Illinois are as follows: (1) the defendant carrier must be primarily liable to the insured for a loss under a policy of insurance, (2) the plaintiff carrier must be secondarily liable to the insured for the same loss under its policy, and (3) the plaintiff carrier must have discharged its liability to the insured and at the same time extinguished the liability of the defendant carrier. 345 Ill.App.3d at 44, citing North American Insurance Co. v. Kemper National Insurance Co., 325 Ill.App.3d 477, 481, 758 N.E.2d 856, 259 Ill.Dec. 448 (2001); State Farm General Insurance Co. v. Stewart, 288 Ill.App.3d 678, , 681 N.E.2d 625, 224 Ill.Dec. 310 (1997). A subrogation action brought by an excess insurer against a primary insurer is completely distinct from a contribution action. The elements necessary to maintain a contribution action focus prospectively on the risk that the parties set out to cover. For a coinsurer to recover, it must have insured the identical risk. In contract, a subrogation claim only requires that the secondary insurer - 8 -
12 insure the same loss as the primary insurer. This requirement looks retrospectively at the loss suffered. D. The Targeted Tender Prohibits Equitable Contribution A question is often asked us as to whether the selected or targeted insurer may seek contribution from other insurers who have not been selected or targeted. The general answer is no. The insurance company which the insured did not select may not be sued by the targeted carrier. In John Burns Construction Co. v. Indiana Ins. Co., 189 Ill. 2d 570, 727 N.E.2d (2000), the Illinois Supreme Court held that an insured had the right to select which of its policies would be required to defend and indemnify it with respect to an underlying action. The court further held that the targeted carrier could not seek equitable contribution from the non-targeted carrier despite the presence of an other insurance provision in the targeted policy. V. ONLY THE INSURED CAN TARGET A TENDER The rights of a carrier against other carriers of its insured, are created by the insured when it determines which policy it requests to provide coverage. The cases allowing a targeted tender have defined it as the insured s right to select which insurer would be required to respond to a loss, or to knowingly forego an insurer s assistance. See John Burns, supra, at 574; Cincinnati Cos., supra, at 326; Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America (3 rd Dist. 1998), 301 Ill.App.3d 720, 723, 726, 704 N.E.2d, [only the insured or someone acting at the specific request of the insured can properly tender and trigger a defense]; Institute of London Underwriters v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 234 Ill.App.3d
13 In recognizing this right of the insured, courts have acknowledged the insured s reason for doing so. Thus, in Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 301 Ill.App.3d 720, 722, 704 N.E.2d 74, the court noted that the general contractor/insured s procedure of shifting the risk to its subcontractors insurers allowed the general contractor to minimize its own loss history and to maintain lower premiums. Similarly, in Institute of London Underwriters v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 234 Ill.App.3d 70, 78-79, the court noted that the insured s actions were not arbitrary, whimsical or vindictive as the insured had bargained with a contractor to be an additional insured on the contractor s policy for the project and [the insured] may well have feared that if the loss were attributed to its policy with Hartford the result might be a rise in premiums or cancellation of its policy. This factor alone suggests the insured ought to have the right to seek or not seek an insurer s participation in a claim as the insured chooses when more than one carrier s policy covers the loss. Thus, reviewing courts have held that only the insured or someone acting at the specific request of the insured (i.e. insurer with insured authority) can properly make a targeted tender. Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Royal Ins. Co. of America, 301 Ill.App.3d 720, 726, 704 N.E.2d 74; Institute of London Underwriters, supra, 234 Ill.App.3d at 75-76, [coverage cannot be triggered by a tender from a rival insurer which contravenes the insured s wishes]. Although a targeted tender may be made by someone other than the insured, a tender letter from the insured itself or an affidavit by the insured would provide the best evidence that the targeted tender is, in fact, being made by the insured or with its authorization. VI. STANDARD PROVISIONS IN LIABILITY POLICIES DO NOT PREVENT A TARGETED TENDER
14 A. Other Insurance Clause The other insurance provision in a policy does not itself overcome an insured s right to tender the defense of an action to one insurer alone. John Burns, supra, 189 Ill.2d at 578. B. Duty to Cooperate Clause The typical duty to cooperate clause does not change the rule that the insured may select which insurer will provide the defense. The insured s duty to cooperate does not extend to being required to tender its defense to other insurers. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. James McHugh Construction Co., 144 F.3d 1097 (7 th Cir. 1998). VII. TARGETED/SELECTIVE TENDERS TO EXCESS Once an insured has exhausted all its concurrent primary insurance coverage, it may selectively tender its indemnity to concurrent excess insurers. North River Insurance v. Grinnell Mutual, 369 Ill.App.3d 563, 860 N.E.2d 460 (2007). (See Section II, B herein.). VIII. AVOIDING WAIVER OF CONTRIBUTION OR SUBROGATION RIGHTS To preserve its remedies of equitable contribution or subrogation, the insurer must avoid the waiver of those rights. Oftentimes, waiver can be implied by failure to assert the rights. Some simple rules for avoiding waiver include: 1. Always document all requests to your insured and its co-insurers in writing
15 2. Always elicit your insured s help in activating tenders; a tender in your own name may be useless since only the insured can activate a tender to create your contribution, indemnity and subrogation rights. 3. Always document your rights, claims, demands and tenders in all settlement and release documents where you are funding now by payment for your insured but preserving your rights against co-insurers. 4. Know the content and coverage of your policy for purposes of all communications. (For instance, in Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance, 213 Ill 2d 307, 821 N.E. 2d 269 (2004) the court found an excess carrier primary where the excess did not realize its own policy contents.) 5. When dealing with co-insurers, never guess, speculate or surmise on the contents of their policy and its interaction with your policy. (See: Home Insurance.) If you are in doubt, demand in the alternative, e.g. some sample language in letters between insurers: (1.) You did not send me your policy. Assume it has a provision similar to ISO #. If I am correct, your coverage has been triggered and you are responsible to share 50/50 with our company. We paid the entire $500,000 loss. You owe us reimbursement of $250,000. (2.) You did not send me your policy. I am the excess carrier. I paid $5,000,000 and in the process also paid your primary limit of $1,500,000. You owe us reimbursement of $1,500, Object to the reasonableness of any settlement made without your participation Waiver arises from an affirmative act, is consensual, and consists of an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill.2d 384, 396, 620 N.E.2d 1073, 189 Ill.Dec. 756 (1993). A waiver may be either expressed or
16 implied, arising from acts, words, conduct, or knowledge of the insurer. Crum & Forster Managers Corp., 156 Ill.2d at 396; Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu, 105 Ill.2d 486, 499, 475 N.E.2d 872, 86 Ill.Dec. 493 (1985). An implied waiver arises when conduct of the person against whom waiver is asserted is inconsistent with any intention other than to waive it. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Westfield Insurance Co., 301 Ill.App.3d 49, 53, 703 N.E.2d 439, 234 Ill.Dec. 578 (1998). Where there is no dispute as to the material facts and only one reasonable inference can be drawn, it is a question of law as to whether waiver has been established. Liberty Mutual, 301 Ill.App.3d at 53. The failure of a paying insurer to reserve its rights against a nonpaying insurer may constitute a waiver of the right to equitable remedies. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:32 (rev. 2004). An insurer desiring to reserve its rights against a second insurer must make this position clear in its correspondence with the second insurer; it is also considered good practice to include such reservation language in any settlement agreement or order, then provide a copy of it to the nonsettling insurer. 15 Couch on Insurance 3d 218:32 (rev. 2004). An insurer by its conduct may waive rights against another insurer. An insurer is presumed to know the contents of its own policy and if it is excess or primary. If it assumes a claim, e.g., for another insurer, premised on the existence or absence of a clause it must so assert same. Home Insurance v. Cincinnati Insurance, 213, Ill.2d 307, 821 N.E.2d 269 (2004). The totality of Home s conduct was inconsistent with any claim that it would seek full reimbursement for the Fisher settlement from Cincinnati. Home accepted Allied s defense without a specific reservation of rights and without asserting that it was an excess insurer. Instead, it only asserted that it would share in the cost of Allied s defense and indemnity with Western on a 50/50 basis. Moreover, Home only sought $300,000 from Cincinnati at the time of the settlement, not the full amount. It also never asserted that it was an excess insurer at the time of settlement
17 In Liberty Mutual, the nonsettling insurer waived the right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement where it did not indicate that it was concerned about the reasonableness of the settlement at the time it was made. Liberty Mutual, 301 Ill.App.3d at 53. Selective or Targeted Tenders Seminar ( DOC)
2012 IL App (1st) 112728-U. No. 1-11-2728
2012 IL App (1st 112728-U FIRST DIVISION November 5, 2012 No. 1-11-2728 Notice: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationEmployers Liability and Insurance Coverage in the Construction Industry
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 18, Number 1 (18.1.29) Insurance Law By: Gregory G. Vacala and Allison H. McJunkin Rusin
More informationAdditional Insured Endorsements: Watch Your Language!
Additional Insured Endorsements: Watch Your Language! By Jill B. Berkeley, Insurance Policyholder Practice Group Chair Risk - 4th Quarter 2010 Reprinted with permission The use of Additional Insured Endorsements
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More information2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013. No. 1-12-2479
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013 No. 1-12-2479 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2013 IL App (1st) 122532-U FIRST DIVISION June 28, 2013. No. 1-12-2532
2013 IL App (1st) 122532-U FIRST DIVISION June 28, 2013 No. 1-12-2532 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2014 IL App (1st) 133931
2014 IL App (1st) 133931 SECOND DIVISION September 9, 2014 No. 1-13-3931 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. v. ) ) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
More informationCase 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
More information2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U. No. 1-13-3918 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellant. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s, London, 2014 IL App (1st) 133931 Appellate Court Caption District & No. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
More information2012 IL App (1st) 111507-U. No. 1-11-1507 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2012 IL App (1st) 111507-U SIXTH DIVISION November 30, 2012 No. 1-11-1507 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationCalifornia Civil Code 2782.05
California Civil Code 2782.05 (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), provisions, clauses, covenants, and agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract and amendments
More informationRevisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits
Revisiting The Duty to Defend After the Exhaustion of the Policy Limits Introduction The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct duties with the duty to defend wider in scope than the duty
More informationNo. 2--08--0380 Filed: 6-23-09 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2--08--0380 Filed: 6-23-09 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Winnebago County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 06--MR--160
More informationIllinois Fund Doctrine
Illinois Fund Doctrine Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel By: Michael Todd Scott State Farm Insurance Company, Bloomington The Illinois Fund Doctrine, Can It Be Avoided? I. Introduction Since
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MCS-90 ENDORSEMENTS FOR TRUCK INSURANCE
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN MCS-90 ENDORSEMENTS FOR TRUCK INSURANCE - By - Martin B. Adams Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf LLC www.kndny.com December 1, 2005 Truckers involved in interstate trucking activities are subject
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More information2015 IL App (1st) 140790-U. No. 1-14-0790 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCION
Case :-cv-00-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS, INC., in its capacity as sponsor and fiduciary for CGI
More informationSAMPLE SERVICES CONTRACT
SAMPLE SERVICES CONTRACT The parties to this contract are the SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, a county water authority, (the Water Authority) and, [a / an], having its principal place of business at
More informationILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Du Page County, 2011 IL App (2d) 100580 Appellate Court Caption STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
More informationDefendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. In this insurance coverage dispute among three insurance companies, the trial court
FIRST DIVISION December 14, 2009 No. 1-07-1798 STATEWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY and WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
More informationAPPORTIONING COVERAGE AMONG INSURERS. the same risk. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 100 A.D.2d 318 (3d Dept.
APPORTIONING COVERAGE AMONG INSURERS I. Introduction In selling insurance to customers, insurers are aware that the risk may at some point be simultaneously insured by another insurer. If an insured obtains
More informationTRIGGERING STOWERS UNDER MULTIPLE POLICIES
TRIGGERING STOWERS UNDER MULTIPLE POLICIES R. BRENT COOPER COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 JACKSON STREET, SUITE 100 DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 Telephone: 214/712-9500 Facsimile: 214/712-9540 5 TH ANNUAL INSURANCE
More informationCalifornia Senate Bill 474 Impact on Owners & Contractors
California Senate Bill 474 Impact on Owners & Contractors Beginning January 1, 2013, project owners, general contractors ( GC ), construction managers ( CM ) and any lower tier contractor who employs subcontractors
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
More informationISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct
ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation
More informationIn The NO. 14-98-00234-CV. UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant
Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,
More informationTHE OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL DEFENSE LEGAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT INSURANCE POLICY
THE OHIO STATE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL DEFENSE LEGAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT INSURANCE POLICY I. BENEFITS 1) In consideration of the premium specified on the Declaration Page forming part of this Master
More informationHenkel Corp v. Hartford Accident
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-27-2008 Henkel Corp v. Hartford Accident Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4856 Follow
More informationNo. 3 10 0439. Order filed April 25, 2011 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2011
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). No. 3 10 0439 Order filed April
More information710.00 LIABILITY INSURANCE
710.00 LIABILITY INSURANCE INTRODUCTION A contract of liability insurance contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Scroggins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 74 Ill.App.3d 1027, 1029; 393 N.E.2d
More informationNo. 1-15-0941 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 150941-U SIXTH DIVISION December 18, 2015 No. 1-15-0941 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationCase: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid>
Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
More information2015 IL App (1st) 143925-U. No. 1-14-3925 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 143925-U FOURTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-14-3925 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationHow To Know If A Property Damage Claim Is Covered Under A Cgl Policy
COVERAGE FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: EXCLUSIONS J(5) AND J(6) R. Douglas Rees Co-author Tara L. Sohlman Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Chicago Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (5th) 140033 Appellate Court Caption ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct
ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00254-TWP-DKL Document 59 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: <pageid>
Case 1:13-cv-00254-TWP-DKL Document 59 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, THE
More informationFOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION. Robert M. Hall
FOLLOW THE SETTLEMENTS: BAD CLAIMS HANDLING EXCEPTION By Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance company executive and acts as an insurance consultant
More informationExcess Carriers Duty to Defend: When Follow Form Means Drop Down and Other Issues
Excess Carriers Duty to Defend: When Follow Form Means Drop Down and Other Issues ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar March 1-3, 2012 Nicholas J. Boos Natalie G. Maciolek Sedgwick LLP
More informationIndemnity Agreements & California s Crawford Decision: Its Implications and Strategies for Defense
Indemnity Agreements & California s Crawford Decision: Its Implications and Strategies for Defense Prepared for the Construction Law Section Meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Federation of Defense
More informationILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS Appellate Court Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Keyser, 2011 IL App (3d) 090484 Appellate Court Caption ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARLES W.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND BUSINESS COURT. v. Case No. 15-144956-CK Hon. James M. Alexander
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND BUSINESS COURT HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-144956-CK Hon. James M. Alexander MDG ENTERPRISES, INC, Defendant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCCQ-14-0000727 29-JUN-2015 10:56 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationConstruction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Construction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
More informationIndemnity Clauses. Just boilerplate, right?
Indemnity Clauses Just boilerplate, right? Indemnity The obligation resting on one person to make good any loss or damage another has incurred or may incur by acting at his request or for his benefit,
More informationSURETY. and Title: (Any additional signatures appear on the last page of this Performance Bond.)
Performance Bond Document A312 2010 CONTRACTOR: (Name, legal status and address) SURETY: (Name, legal status and principal place of business) OWNER: (Name, legal status and address) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411
Case: 1:10-cv-02125 Document #: 55 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:411 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GUARANTEE TRUST LIFE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 101097 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP, Plaintiff and Appellant, B091492 (Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
More informationPresent: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J.
Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, and Mims, JJ., and Koontz, S.J. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE OPINION BY v. Record No. 100082 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 21, 2011 ENTERPRISE LEASING
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, UNPUBLISHED July 1, 2004 v No. 245390 Livingston Circuit Court ARMADA CORPORATION HOSKINS LC No. 01-018840-CK MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
More informationKentucky Department of Education Version of Document A312 2010
Kentucky Department of Education Version of Document A312 2010 Performance Bond CONTRACTOR: (Name, legal status and address) SURETY: (Name, legal status and principal place of business) OWNER: (Name, legal
More informationLiberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v Burlington Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 30564(U) April 14, 2015 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 155165/2012 Judge:
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v Burlington Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 30564(U) April 14, 2015 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 155165/2012 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
More informationCourt Approval Over Cases Involving Injuries to Minors By Adam J. Zayed
Court Approval Over Cases Involving Injuries to Minors By Adam J. Zayed In Illinois, a minor is considered a ward of the court, and the court has a duty and broad discretion to protect the minor s interests.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. EDWARDS, JR. Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KATHRYN A. MOLL Nation Schoening Moll Fortville, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
More information2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER DEC 14 2004. Clerk RONALD A. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, No. 03-1186 (D.C. No. 01-MK-1626) (D. Colo.
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 14 2004 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk RONALD A. PETERSON, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc Robert E. Fast, M.D., et al., Appellants, vs. No. SC89734 F. James Marston, M.D., Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY Honorable Weldon C. Judah,
More informationPrimary vs. Excess/Umbrella:
Primary vs. Excess/Umbrella: Hammering, Dropping, Exhausting and More Neil Selman Selman Breitman LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538 (310) 445-0800 nselman@selmanbreitman.com
More informationHow To Get Money Back From A Fall And Fall Case
Case 2:14-cv-00797-BMS Document 16 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WESTERN : HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-341 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case 3:12-cv-00341 Document 30 Filed in TXSD on 03/31/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION PAC-VAN, INC., Plaintiff, VS. CHS, INC. D/B/A CHS COOPERATIVES,
More informationCase 1:03-cv-00630-RHB Document 92 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:03-cv-00630-RHB Document 92 Filed 02/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION J.B. LABORATORIES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
More informationMONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION
MONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION Executive Director Bob Worthington Board of Directors Rick Clark Plum Creek Timber Co Tim Fitzpatrick MT Schools Group Donna Haeder NorthWestern Corp Marv Jordan MT Contractors
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:01 CV 726 DDN VENETIAN TERRAZZO, INC., Defendant. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Pursuant
More information2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
More informationCOVERAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
COVERAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS An Illinois Perspective Scott W. Hoyne Joseph F. Spitzzeri Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 33 W. Monroe Street 33 W. Monroe Street 27 th Floor 27 th Floor Chicago,
More informationRIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURED, PRIMARY INSURER AND EXCESS INSURERS IN LARGE LOSS CASES. Linda S. Woolf. Introduction
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURED, PRIMARY INSURER AND EXCESS INSURERS IN LARGE LOSS CASES Linda S. Woolf Introduction In today s litigation arena, where an increasing number of cases implicate multiple
More informationCan You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Can You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance? Law360,
More informationCOMMENTARY. California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos?
May 2013 JONES DAY COMMENTARY California s New Subcontractor Defense Regime for Non-Residential Projects: Creating Order or Chaos? As explained in a recent Commentary (available at http://www.jonesday.com/navigating_treacherous_
More information2015 IL App (1st) 142070-U No. 1-14-2070 March 24, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 142070-U No. 1-14-2070 March 24, 2015 SECOND DIVISION NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationCase 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Case 3:07-cv-01180-TEM Document 56 Filed 04/27/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION JAMES E. TOMLINSON and DARLENE TOMLINSON, his wife, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUnited States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview
United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview January 18, 2012 Jill Kirila jill.kirila@squiresanders.com Kevin Hess kevin.hess@squiresanders.com 36 Offices in 17 Countries Workers Compensation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-10510 Document: 00513424063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2016 Lyle W.
More informationFILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationCase 3:10-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 310-cv-01946-SRU Document 1 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY as successor to THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO.,
More informationCommunity Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 329
Page 1 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents; UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
More informationTHE TEXAS PROMPT PAYMENT OF CLAIMS STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE DUTY TO DEFEND
THE TEXAS PROMPT PAYMENT OF CLAIMS STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE DUTY TO DEFEND January 8, 2008 THOMPSON COE I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to provide the insurance claims handler
More informationILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XIII BAD FAITH AND EXTRA CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY. An insured or an assignee may recover extra-contractual damages from an
If you have questions or would like further information regarding Excess Judgments in Third Party Claims, please contact: Kevin Caplis 312-540-7630 kcaplis@querrey.com Result Oriented. Success Driven.
More information2014 IL App (1st) 123430-U. Nos. 1-12-3430 and 1-12-3457, Consolidated
2014 IL App (1st) 123430-U FOURTH DIVISION March 13, 2014 Nos. 1-12-3430 and 1-12-3457, Consolidated NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party
More informationCase: 1:04-cv-00879 Document #: 134 Filed: 02/01/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:04-cv-00879 Document #: 134 Filed: 02/01/07 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, ) INC. and BLOOMINGDALE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-5016 NATIONAL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. Robert L. Magrini, Haynes Magrini & Gatewood,
More informationNo. 2--07--1205 Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
Filed: 12-19-08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT WESTPORT INSURANCE Appeal from the Circuit Court CORPORATION, of McHenry County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v. No. 04--MR--53
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
More informationCase 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9. United States District Court District of Massachusetts MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Case 1:10-cv-10170-NMG Document 38 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9 WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES CZECH and WILLIAMS BUILDING COMPANY, INC., Defendants. United States District Court
More informationCase: 1:12-cv-05985 Document #: 118 Filed: 01/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:<pageid>
Case: 1:12-cv-05985 Document #: 118 Filed: 01/14/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KATHRYN MARCHETTI and ) JONATHON
More informationCase 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationTHE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
THE RIGHT TO INDEPENDENT COUNSEL Julie A. Shehane Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Telephone: 214-712 712-9546 Telecopy: 214-712 712-9540 Email: Julie.Shehane@cooperscully.com 2015 This
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationRE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN R. OBENCHAIN BRIAN M. KUBICKI Jones Obenchain, LLP South Bend, Indiana IN
More informationHow To Defend A Policy In Nevada
Insurance for In-House Counsel April 2014 Kevin Stolworthy, Esq. / Conor Flynn, Esq. / Matthew Stafford, Esq. Commercial General Liability Insurance ( CGL insurance ) Purpose of CGL Insurance CGL insurance
More information