December 2011 Case Notes & Comments

“I told the doctor I broke my leg in two places.
He told me to quit going to those places." ~ Henny Youngman

Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd. cares about its clients and appreciates the many opportunities our firm has had to earn your business. One way we can continue to earn your business is to keep you informed. Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd. has designed Case Notes & Comments with this aim in mind.

 

MONTHLY QUIZ: Elf is an employee of Santa Claus and Hanukah Harry in their jointly owned toy factory. One snowy holiday evening, Elf is making a delivery of newly made toys from the North Pole toy factory to a storage warehouse owned and operated by Grinch.  Grinch had hired Abominable Snowman to shovel the warehouse’s parking lot, and Snowman pushed the snow into enormous piles up against the north side of the warehouse. Witnesses testify that it then melted during the day, flowed onto the parking lot, and refroze at night as an “ice flow” covering the entire lot.  Santa and Harry had asked Grinch to remove the ice, but Grinch failed to do so. While negotiating the lot to make his delivery, Elf slips and falls.  Elf brings a claim against Grinch and Snowman in the court of Father Time. Grinch and Snowman move for summary judgment on the basis that Elf lacks sufficient evidence to prove whether the ice was an unnatural accumulation. Who wins? You be the judge. (Answer below.)

 

ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - INSURER HAS DUTY TO DEFEND & INDEMNIFY GENERAL CONTRACTOR: General Contractor (GC) hired Insured-Subcontractor in conjunction with roofing Project. In turn, Subcontractor retained Company to perform a portion of the work and Company rented a boom-lift. Subcontractor procured a general liability policy (Policy) naming GC as additional insured (AI), which included an endorsement that did not apply to claims “arising out of the sole negligence of [GC].” GC’s Employee was killed when Company’s boom-lift flipped over. Employee’s Estate filed a suit naming GC, Company and two additional defendants. Subcontractor was neither named nor mentioned in the complaint. GC filed a declaratory judgment action seeking defense and indemnity from Subcontractor’s Insurer. Trial court found that since complaint did not mention Subcontractor, Insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify GC. On appeal, GC argued that “but for” Subcontractor’s retention of Company, Employee would not have been killed. In reversing trial court and finding coverage, appellate court held that “sole negligence” exception applied only where underlying allegations deal solely and exclusively with an additional insured’s negligence. The court reasoned that the claims were not exclusively or solely directed at GC. Appellate court also found that Insurer was estopped from disputing coverage as it had failed to either defend GC under a reservation of rights, or bring a declaratory action in a timely fashion. GC was entitled to defense and indemnity. A-1 Roofing Co., v. Navigators Ins. Co., No. 1-10-0878, 2011 WL -- (1st Dist. Nov. 21, 2011)

 

ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - INSURER HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND GENERAL CONTRACTOR BASED UPON CERTIFICATE: Subcontractor procured a general liability policy (Policy) from Insurer that did not name General Contractor (GC) as an additional insured. Shortly thereafter, Subcontractor’s insurance agent issued a certificate of insurance that also did not reference GC. Per its terms, the certificate was issued merely as a matter of information and neither conferred any rights nor amended, extended or altered any coverages provided by the Policy. GC’s Employee was subsequently injured on the Project and sued his employer, GC, and Subcontractor. GC tendered suit to Insurer. Insurer denied tender and filed a declaratory action. In Illinois, where the certificate refers to a policy and expressly disclaims any coverage other than that contained in the policy itself, the policy governs the extent and terms of coverage. In concluding that Insurer had no duty to defend GC, court found that since GC was not listed on the certificate and was given the disclaimer language, GC was on notice that there was a question as to its status as an additional insured. Owners Ins. Co. v. Seamless Gutter Corp., et al., 2011 IL App (1st) 082924 (1st Dist. Nov. 14, 2011)

 

UNINSURED MOTORISTS / WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: Driver-Employee was injured in motor-vehicle accident allegedly caused by an uninsured driver while driving a truck owned by his Employer. Employee sought uninsured motorist coverage under Employer’s vehicle Policy, which contained a limitation provision stating that “no one will be entitled to receive duplicative payments for the same elements of ‘loss.’” Held: Plaintiff could seek certain elements of his claim under Policy, such as disfigurement, increased risk of harm and pain and suffering but not others, such as loss of a normal life, the discounted amounts of medical bills and expenses and loss of earnings. In so doing, the Court also held that “the term ‘loss of a normal life’ has almost universally been interpreted as a component of disability which compensates for a change in the plaintiff’s lifestyle.” Burcham v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035 (2nd Dist. Nov. 21, 2011)

 

ELECTRONIC DATA - INSURED’S COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE COMPANY DID NOT SPECIFY HOW ITS COMPUTER SYSTEM GOT VIRUS: Company procured commercial Policy that provided coverage for “direct physical loss …or damage to Covered Property… caused by… a Covered Cause of Loss,” but excluded loss or damage to data and software, except as provided in additional coverages. While it claimed that “a virus was introduced” into its computer system that disrupted business and deleted, damaged or disrupted numerous computer files and libraries, Company did not indicate who or what introduced the virus. In the alternative, Company claimed that “dishonest acts” committed by employees caused the loss. Insurer denied Company’s claim for coverage and Company sued. The court considered several endorsements, such as a Media Endorsement that extended coverage to damage caused by a virus, but excluded losses by dishonest employees. In dismissing Complaint , Court reasoned that the only allegation regarding who or what introduced the virus related to the dishonest acts of its employees, which was excluded. Apps Commc'n, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 11 C 3994, 2011 WL 4905628 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2011)

 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Elf has presented enough evidence of Grinch and Snowman’s negligence to present to a jury. Grinch, as landowner, has a duty to provide safe ingress and egress into his warehouse. Snowman has a duty to exercise reasonable care in removing snow. Here, Elf presented sufficient evidence that Snowman created an unnatural accumulation and that Grinch had both actual and constructive notice of the conditions. Hornacek v. 5th Av. Property Mgmnt, 2011 IL App (1st) 103502 (1st Dist. Sept. 30, 2011)

Past Publications

2024

March 2024
January 2024

2023

December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023

2022

December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022

2021

December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021

2020

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020

2019

December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019

2018

December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018

2017

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017

2016

December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016

2015

December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

2014

December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014

2013

December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013

2012

December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012

2011

December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011

2010

December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010

2009

December 2009