July 2010 Case Notes & Comments

I have always struggled to achieve excellence.
One thing that cycling has taught me is that if you can achieve something without a struggle it's not going to be satisfying. ~ Greg LeMond

MONTHLY QUIZ: PEDESTRIAN VERSUS SCOUTMASTER - Girl Scouts finished their cookie sale in front of grocery store, loaded the minivan, and all piled in for trip to restaurant for lunch as a reward. Scoutmaster driving van to exit parking lot was distracted by calling wife on cell phone to ask where to take girls to lunch, and struck pedestrian. Pedestrian sues Girl Scouts, alleging Scoutmaster was agent and was acting in scope of agency. Girl Scouts move for summary judgment, arguing: (1) Scoutmaster was not agent; and (2) even if he was, he was not acting within scope of agency. Who wins (1) and (2)? You be the judge. (Answer below).

 

INSURANCE COVERAGE: NO DUTY TO DEFEND GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNDER ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT – Subcontractor’s employee was injured on construction site and sued the General Contractor (GC), alleging: “That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of [GC], [Employee] was [injured.]” The contract between Subcontractor and GC required GC to be made additional insured on Sub’s general liability policy. Policy endorsement provided coverage to “additional insured[s],” but only for “liability incurred solely as a result of some act or omission of … [Subcontractor] and not for [their] own negligence.” GC tendered its defense to Subcontractor’s insurance company, which filed a declaratory judgment, claiming it had no duty to defend. In reversing the Trial Court, the 1st District held: “We continue to agree with our earlier decisions finding that direct allegations of negligence against an additional insured do not fall within coverage granted “‘only with respect to liability incurred solely as a result of some act or omission of the named insured and not for [the additional insured's] own independent negligence or statutory violation.’” Pekin Ins. Co. v. Roszak/ADC, -- N.E.2d ---, 2010 WL 2571815 (1st Dist. No. 1-09-1709, June 25, 2010).

 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO WAGE DIFFERENTIAL AWARD EVEN IF UNEMPLOYED - Claimant, a mill operator, injured his elbow doing the heavy work his job required. As a result, he could only work as a security guard. Claimant found work as a security guard, but quit after 2 ½ months when his wife found a better job. An arbitrator awarded a wage differential for the difference between Claimant’s wages as a mill operator and as a security guard. Upon review, the Court reasoned that even though unemployed, Claimant was still entitled to a wage differential award, since he had established his current earning capacity. Copperweld Tubing Prod. v. Illinois Workers' Comp. Comm’n,--- N.E.2d ----, 2010 WL 2521020(1st Dist. No. 1-09-1422WC, June 22, 2010)

 

NEGLIGENCE: RESCUER CANNOT RECOVER FROM RESCUED PARTY WHO DID NOT CREATE DANGEROUS SITUATION - Patient had a medical emergency and called Neighbor for help. Although Neighbor wanted to call an ambulance, Patient insisted that Neighbor drive her to the hospital. Neighbor injured her shoulder while helping Patient to car, and sued Patient for her injuries. The court dismissed Neighbor’s claim because Patient did not place herself in a dangerous situation “where she knew others might or could attempt to rescue her….[but rather] asked or insisted that [Neighbor] drive her to the hospital.” The mere request for assistance and/or demand for help did not create any duty on the part of Patient. Furthermore, the injury to Neighbor was not foreseeable and that placing the burden of guarding against such injury on Patient was impracticable. Tannehill v. Costello, --- N.E.2d ----, 2010 WL 1875791 (1st Dist. No. 1-09-0868 May 10, 2010) COMPARE - Strickland v. Kotecki, 392 Ill.App.3d 1099, 913 N.E.2d 80 (3rd Dist. 2009) (Holding that Rescue Doctrine allows a rescuer to recover from a rescued party if the rescuer is injured in the course of a rescue.)

 

INSURER COULD NOT DISCHARGE DUTY TO DEFEND BY TENDERING POLICY LIMITS TO COURT – After a multivehicle accident that caused the deaths of eight people and injuries to many others, twelve consolidated lawsuits were filed against Truck Driver, Carrier, and Trailer Owner, all of whom were insured under Carrier’s $1,000,000 policy. The policy provided that Insurer would “not defend any suit after it has paid the applicable limit of its liability.” Insurer deposited the $1,000,000 policy limit with the Court and filed an interpleader, seeking a declaration that the deposit relieved Insurer of any further duty to defend or indemnify. The trial and appellate courts held that Insurer “could not discharge its duty to defend simply by depositing policy limits with the court” because no settlements or judgments had been reached. The Court also noted a “‘strong public policy… against allowing insurers to discharge their duty to defend by paying policy limits and then leaving the insured to fend for himself.” American Service Ins. Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co.,--- N.E.2d ----, 2010 WL 2487945(1st Dist. No. 1-08-1821, June 16, 2010)

 

ANSWER TO QUIZ: Girl Scouts win both (1) and (2). Numerous cases from around the country hold that national organizations and local councils do not retain control over the actions of their scout leaders and, therefore, are not liable for the negligence of the scout leaders under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Even if Scoutmaster were an agent, he was not acting within the scope of that agency when he drove his minivan to lunch after the cookie sale. Krickl v. Girl Scouts, Ill. Crossroads Council, Inc., --- N.E.2d ----, 2010 WL 2465441 (1st Dist. No 1-09-2454, June 16, 2010)

Past Publications

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