February 2012 Case Notes & Comments

“What’s another word for thesaurus?” ~ Steven Wright

MONTHLY QUIZ: Defendant-policyholders’ application for auto insurance included material misrepresentations intended to procure a lower premium rate.  Relying on those misrepresentations, Plaintiff-insurer issued a policy of auto insurance.  The policy is renewed once, and is in its second term when the policyholders are involved in a car accident.  As a result of the accident, the insurer makes payments to the owners of both vehicles for property damage. Additionally, the policyholders are considered potential defendants in a bodily injury suit arising from the accident.  After discovering its insureds’ misrepresentations, Plaintiff-insurer brings a complaint for rescission of the policy.  Defendant-policyholders raise Section 154 of the Illinois Insurance Code as an affirmative defense, arguing that the statute bars the insurer from rescinding the policy based on the misrepresentation.  Who wins?  You be the judge.  (Answer below).


LEF WINS ARSON TRIAL: Congratulations to Thomas J. Finn and John J. McInerney, who prevailed on behalf of the insurer in a first party breach of contract / bad faith suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the insurer, awarding the insured nothing on her $1.6 million claim.  In 2009, the insured’s single family residence burned down. Tom and John prevailed on their arson and fraud affirmative defenses, convincing the jury that the fire was set intentionally, at the insured’s direction.  Horvath v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, 3:10 C 180 (N.D. Ind., Feb. 6, 2012) 


LEF WINS APPEAL: Congratulations to John J. McInerney. John convinced the Court of Appeals for the State of Wisconsin, District II, that the issue of whether a builder's risk policy was in effect at the same time as a homeowner’s policy was an issue of fact for the jury to decide. Consequently, LEF overturned a multi-million dollar verdict against a builder’s risk insurer, remanding the matter back to the lower court for a new trial. Fontana Builders, Inc. v. Assurance Company of America, 2011 WL 6058266 (Wis. App., Dec. 07, 2011)


IMPROPER TENNEY LETTER RESULTS IN REDUCTION OF INSURER’S LIEN BY ONE THIRD: Following auto accident, Insurer A sought reimbursement from Insurer B for medical expense payments. In the process, Insurer A sent a purported Tenney letter to the arbitration panel. A Tenney letter is a prompt and unequivocal notification to plaintiff and/or his attorneys that an insurer desires to represent its own subrogation claim. See Tenney v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 128 Ill.App.3d 121 (4th Dist. 1984). The plaintiff and defendant subsequently settled for an amount that included the medical expenses. The trial court reduced Insurer A’s lien by one third to satisfy plaintiff’s attorney’s right to a fee pursuant to the common fund doctrine.  The appellate court affirmed holding that Insurer A failed to notify the parties that it intended to collect its subrogation claim on its own because it only sent the Tenney letter to the arbitration panel. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s attorney was entitled to one-third of the subrogated amount as his attorneys’ fee pursuant to the common fund doctrine. Wajnberg v. Wunglueck, 2011 IL App (2d) 110190, 2011 WL 6849685 (2nd Dist, Dec. 29, 2011).


COURT REJECTS APPLICATION OF “RETAINED CONTROL” EXCEPTION TO SUBCONTRACTOR -Plaintiff ironworker suffers fall from steel beam and files negligence action against General Contractor and Subcontractor who subcontracted steel erection work to the ironworker’s Employer. Plaintiff relied on Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which holds that a party who entrusts work to an independent contractor and “retains the control of any part of the work” is subject to liability for any harm to others caused by failure to exercise the control with reasonable care. The Court found that Subcontractor did not retain sufficient control over the safety of the steel erection work, because its subcontract with the ironworker’s Employer specifically delegated supervision and safety to ironworker’s Employer, and the evidence showed no retained control. Therefore, Subcontractor had no liability to ironworker. Oshana v. FCL Builders, Inc., -- N.E.2d -- (1st Dist, Jan. 27, 2012).


ILLINOIS GUARANTY FUND MAY BE LIABLE FOR CLAIMS UNDER WORKER’S COMPENSATION POLICIES ISSUED BY INSOLVENT INSURERS - The Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund appealed from the circuit court of Cook County’s ruling that the Fund was obligated to make permanent total disability payments to a workers’ compensation claimant following the insolvency of employer’s excess workers’ compensation insurer.  Under the Illinois Insurance Code, the Guaranty Fund is the source of last resort in the event of the insolvency of an insurer.  While the Fund argued that its obligation to make payments was limited to claims by employees, the Appellate Court disagreed, holding that the Fund’s liability may extend to claims of policyholders of workers’ compensation policies issued by insolvent insurers.  Additionally, as a matter of first impression in Illinois, the Code does not limit the Fund’s obligation regarding excess workers’ compensation policies purchased by self-insuring employers.  Skokie Castings v. Illinois Ins. Guaranty Fund, 2012 IL App (1st) 111533 (1st Dist, Jan. 18, 2012).


WORKERS COMPENSATION - “ODD LOT” DISABILITY - BURDEN OF PROOF:Claimant, a former air traffic controller of 27 years took a job driving a van transporting railroad workers to trains. While performing job duties, Claimant stepped onto a frozen clump of ice and rock, twisting his right knee, and ultimately underwent arthroscopic surgery on the right knee, and sought Permanent Total Disability (PTD).  An injured employee can establish his entitlement to PTD (benefits under the Act in one of three ways: (1) By a preponderance of medical evidence; (2) By showing a diligent but unsuccessful job search; or (3) By demonstrating that, because of age, training, education, experience, and condition, there are no available jobs for a person in his circumstance (the “odd-lot” category). If a claimant meets his burden on number (3), the burden shifts to the employer to show that some kind of suitable work is regularly and continuously available to the claimant.  But in the absence of medical evidence to support a claim of total disability or his having conducted a diligent but unsuccessful job search, the claimant, who is not obviously unemployable, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is so handicapped that he will not be employed regularly in any well-known branch of the labor market. Held:  Medical evidence did not support a finding of disability; Claimant failed to undertake a diligent job search; and, Claimant failed to establish that he was so handicapped that he would not be employed regularly in any well-known branch of the labor market. Claimant was not entitled to PTD. Professional Transportation v. Illinois Worker’s Compensation Commission, 2012 Ill. App. (3d) 100783WC (3rd Dist, Jan. 19, 2012).


ANSWER TO QUIZ: Policyholders win. Section 154 of the Code states that certain types of policies, such as the auto policy at issue, “a policy or policy renewal shall not be rescinded after the policy has been in effect for one year or one policy term, whichever is less." This provision applies regardless of any misrepresentations by the insured. Std. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, - N.E. 2d - , 2012 IL App (4th) 110526 (Feb. 3, 2012)

Past Publications


June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
January 2024


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


December 2009