MONTHLY QUIZ: CROSS-INDEMNITY AGREEMENT: Hospital entered into contract with College to permit students to work at Hospital. Contract contained agreement that each would hold the other harmless for their own activities. Hospital assigned Student to work in x-ray room; had sole control over x-ray room; and Student was under its control at all times. Student negligently put patient on a physician’s chair with wheels and had patient lean over x-ray table. Chair rolled and patient was injured. Patient sues Hospital and Student, alleging Student was negligent, and Hospital vicariously responsible. Hospital now tenders its defense and indemnity to College under Contract. College responds that Hospital controlled both Student and x-ray room and Student is alleged to be agent of Hospital. Query: Does College have to indemnify Hospital? You be the judge. (Answer below).
IL SUPREME COURT: MED-MAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES CAPS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: Illinois Supreme Court holds that 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5, which caps non-economic damage awards against hospitals and physicians in malpractice actions at $1,000,000 and $500,000, respectively, violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Lebron, v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, --- N.E.2d --- , 2010 WL 375190, (IL.S.Ct. Feb. 04, 2010)
IL SUPREME COURT: EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMP BENEFITS EVEN IF FIRED FOR CAUSE: Employee receiving disability benefits was terminated for cause. Thereafter, Employer stopped paying benefits despite the fact that Employee’s work-related condition had not stabilized for purposes of his eligibility. In reversing the appellate court, the IL Supreme Court held that entitlement to benefits is a completely separate issue from, and may not be conditioned on, the propriety of the discharge. Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. v. IL Workers’ Compensation Commission, 385 Ill. App. 3d 1040 (IL S.Ct. Jan. 22, 2010)
2nd DISTRICT CLARIFIES ‘SAME RISK’ ANALYSIS FOR PURPOSES OF EQUITABLE CONTRIBUTION: Carpentry Subcontractor (Carpenter) also providing construction supervision services, purchased a policy naming General Contractor (GC) as additional insured. Specialty Subcontractor (Sub), whose employee was injured, procured a policy through a different insurer, also naming GC as additional insured. The trial court found equitable contribution inapplicable; reasoning that, since Carpenter and Sub performed different work, the policies “did not cover the same risk[s].” The 2nd District disagreed, finding equitable contribution applicable. The appellate court noted that, although subcontractors performed different work, the Carpenter was also hired to supervise construction and was therefore, responsible for supervising all of the subcontractors, including Sub. Under these facts, the 2nd District held that both insurers covered the same risks.American States Ins. Co. v. CFM Const. Co. , -- N.E.2d ----, 2010 WL 145123 (2nd Dist. Jan. 12, 2010)
11-MONTH DELAY NOTIFYING INSURER NOT UNREASONABLE: Where unsophisticated insured reportedly believed no claim would be made, court declined to hold that 11-month delay in notifying insurer was unreasonable as a matter of law. Berglind v. Paintball Business Ass’n, --- N.E.2d ---, 2009 WL 5125671 (1st Dist. Dec. 24, 2009)
UNDERAGE DRINKING NOT COVERED BY HOMEOWNERS’ POLICY: Relying on exclusion barring coverage for criminal or intentional acts, 3rd District held that insurer was not obligated to defend/indemnify defendant-insureds in lawsuit stemming from death of minor allegedly supplied with alcohol by persons in household where allegations described criminal conduct. Held: The criminal act exclusion barred coverage, irrespective of potential application of the intentional act exclusion. Allstate Insurance Company v. Greer, --- N.E.2d ---, 2009 WL 5195936 (3rd Dist. Dec.30, 2009)
ANSWER TO QUIZ: Yes, College must indemnify Hospital. Complaint did not allege independent negligence of Hospital; and Student was student of College, not employee of Hospital. Smith v. West Suburban Medical Center, --- Ill.App.3d --- (1st District, No. 1-08-3636, January 21, 2010)
In an effort to be responsible to the environment, Leahy, Eisenberg & Fraenkel, Ltd.’s Case Notes & Comments will be issued electronically and will be accessible on our website. Going “paperless” is one of the many ways we can make a meaningful difference in reducing our environmental impact. Of course, please contact us should you wish to continue to receive our monthly updates by mail.
