January 2011 Case Notes & Comments

“The Web is less about just hitting someone with a message... It’s about engagement.”~ Mark Zuckerberg

MONTHLY QUIZ: Insured makes and transports parade floats. Insured’s commercial liability insurance policy excludes injury or damages arising out of the use of any “auto,” which is defined as “a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi-trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment.” Passenger is thrown from parade float being pulled by Insured and sues for negligence. Insurance Company files declaratory action seeking determination that Passenger’s injuries are not covered. Does the parade float qualify as an “auto” so as to exclude coverage for Passenger’s claims? Who wins? You be the judge. (Answer below).


CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - INSURANCE LAW: Admiral defended Wegman, an additional insured under its policy, in a high-exposure construction-site injury case.  Admiral knew that any verdict or settlement of the case would likely “well exceed” its $1 million limits. Neither Admiral, nor defense counsel, communicated with Wegman about the value of the case until the time of trial. Wegman had excess insurance but its carrier denied coverage based upon late notice. The Seventh Circuit ruled that where the insurer is controlling the defense, the possibility of excess liability creates a conflict of interest which requires the insurer to notify and advise the insured of the right to independent counsel. The court rejected Admiral’s arguments that there was no duty to notify the insured until settlement negotiations had begun or that the defense counsel was obliged to keep the insured apprised. According to the Court, it is the insurer’s duty to disclose any conflict of interest.  Admiral’s failure to advise of the conflict subjected it to potential liability for the excess verdict, as well as, penalties and fees under the Illinois Insurance Code.  R.G. Wegman Constr. Co. v. Admiral Ins. Co., Case No. 09-2022 (7th Cir. January 14, 2011)

SECTION 512.52 OF IL INSURANCE CODE, PUBLIC ADJUSTER’S LIEN: Public adjuster notified insurer that it had been hired by insured to adjust the claim, and claimed lien for its 10% fee.  Insurer settled with public adjuster, and included public adjuster on the check.  But then, insured fired the public adjuster and asked insurer to reissue check without public adjuster as payee, which insurer did.  Public adjuster sued insurer for the lien amount. The Court found that insurer was liable to public adjuster for the 10% lien. Golub and Associates, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.,-- N.E.2d --, 2011 WL 190416 (5th Dist. Jan. 18, 2011)

 

WORKERS COMPENSATION: Employer gave Claimant Following a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant was not in the course of his employment, but was engaged in a personal deviation. The Commission and circuit court affirmed. On appeal, Claimant argued that at the time of his accident, he was a traveling employee. In IL, traveling employees are generally held to be in the course of employment from the time they leave home until they return, provided that they are engaged in conduct that might normally be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by employers. Held: Claimant was entitled to benefits. Appellate court reasoned that, though Claimant made slight deviation from his route home, he had already made his withdrawal and was on his way home again when the accident occurred. Therefore, Claimant had re-entered the course of his employment. Cox v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm’n, et al. -- N.E.2d --, 2010 WL 5175507 (1st Dist. Dec. 20, 2010)

INSURANCE/CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW: FAILURE TO PRODUCE VEHICLE FATAL TO AUTO DAMAGE CLAIM- Driver’s car was in an accident. The next day, Insurer estimated damages and cut Driver a check for amount of the estimate, which Driver accepted. Driver then got single repair estimate that exceeded Insurer’s estimate, decided not to make repairs and donated the car to charity. Driver sued Insurer for breach of contract and consumer fraud, alleging that Insurer omitted necessary repairs from its estimate in violation of Insurer’s promise to restore vehicle to preloss condition. Held: Driver could not prove pre-loss condition without production of vehicle and dismissed Driver’s claims. Though driver argued otherwise, the court found that the fact that Driver received a repair estimate exceeding Insurer’s estimate was insufficient to prove that Insurer’s payment was inadequate to restore Driver’s car to preloss condition. Sufficiency of fraud claims also discussed. Greenberger v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., Case No. 09-1603 (7th Cir. January 10, 2011)

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Insurance Company wins. Parade float is categorized as a “trailer.” Therefore, parade float was also an “auto” as set forth in the exclusion and precludes coverage for Passenger’s injuries. Coverage for allegations regarding Insured’s “defective and unsafe” float also examined.Maxum Indemnity Company v. Don and Betty Gillette,--N.E.2d--, 2010 WL 4967814 (3rd Dist. Nov. 22, 2010)

Past Publications

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