July 2013 Case Notes & Comments

“Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.” ~ Albert Einstein

MONTHLY QUIZ: Insured fails to make monthly premium payments and Insurer automatically cancels the Policy, after sending notice and its own proof of mailing, based upon United States Post Office (USPO) Form 3877. Months later, Insured negligently collides with an ambulance and admits fault. Insurer does not defend lawsuit. Insured hires her own lawyer, stipulates to $900k judgment and assigns her rights to Driver. Driver sues Insurer. On summary judgment, Insurer argues that it properly cancelled Insured’s policy for non-payment and presents a copy of its cancellation notice and proof of mailing. Driver argues that Policy cancellation was defective since the proof of mailing was not on Form 3877, or another form acceptable to the USPO - as required by statute. In response, Insurer submits affidavits stating that its private form contains the same information as Form 3877, the form has UPSO approval and was accepted for use by the USPO. Driver also argues that Insurer is estopped from raising policy defenses since it did not defend Insured, or file a declaratory action. Is insurer’s own cancellation form acceptable? Is Insurer estopped from raising a cancellation defense since it did not first defend under a reservation, or file a declaratory action? You be the judge. (Answer below)


INSURABLE INTEREST - ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION: Ward was cared for by Public Guardian. Public Guardian obtained insurance from Insurer for Ward’s Property. The insurance policy identified Public Guardian as the named insured, and also made reference to an apparently nonexistent “Named Insured Schedule.” A second Schedule did exist that listed the Property owned by Ward; and in a third schedule, Ward’s Estate was designated as the “Loss Payee.” Ward died, Public Guardian was discharged, and an Administrator of Ward’s Estate was appointed. Ward’s property was then destroyed by fire. Administrator made a claim to Insurer for the fire loss.  Insurer denied claim, asserting that Policy covered Public Guardian’s insurable interest in the property and that the Public Guardian, having previously been discharged after Ward’s death, had no insurable interest in the property at the time of the loss. On appeal, Court considered reference to the nonexistent “Named Insured Schedule” reason enough to inquire into the intention of the parties as to the identity of the insured. The Court considered it “clear” from the face of the policy and facts that Public Guardian obtained coverage not to protect its own property interests, but to protect Ward’s property interests. Further, the fact that premiums were chargeable to Ward’s Estate led Court to the conclusion that Ward’s Estate - not Public Guardian - was the intended insured under the Policy. Affirmed - the damage to Ward’s Property was a covered loss payable to the Administrator of Ward’s Estate. Ryding v. The Cincinnati Special Underwriters Insurance Company, 2013 IL App (2d) 120833 (Jun. 28, 2013)


WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - INSURER NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON REIMBURSEMENT: While driving gasoline truck, Employee was killed by oncoming truck. Insurer paid Employee’s Estate workers’ compensation (WC) benefits. Estate subsequently recovered against other third-party tortfeasors involved in accident and was awarded damages and statutory interest. Insurer claimed that it was also entitled to a portion of the statutory interest award. Section 5 of the Illinois Workers Comp. Act provides for reimbursement of WC benefits when a judgment against a third-party tortfeasor is obtained. However, in affirming judgment below, Court concluded that Insurer was not entitled to reimbursement of its WC payments until Estate obtained a judgment against the third-party tortfeasors in the underlying action andonly after Estate had been paid.Williamson v. Asher, 2013 IL App (1st) 122038 (Jun. 24, 2013)


NEXT-OF-KIN HAVE RIGHT TO REMAINS: Following her death, Hospital buried Daughter’s body in a mass, unmarked grave. Mother (Plaintiff) contended that Daughter was buried without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, without performing a requested autopsy and maintained that Hospital’s misconduct made it impossible to give Daughter a proper burial in the family plot. Plaintiff sued Hospital for, among other things, willful and wanton interference with Daughter’s remains. Jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff and against Hospital. In Illinois, next-of-kin have a quasi-property right to possession of remains in order to determine the time, manner, and the place of burial. To state a cause of action based on the next-of-kin’s right of possession and preservation of the body of a decedent, a plaintiff must demonstrate by specific facts that the defendant’s conduct was wilful and wanton. Given the conflicting evidence as to whether Plaintiff consented to the burial and whether Hospital policy was followed, the Appellate Court affirmed the Jury’s verdict against Hospital.Drakeford v. University of Chicago Hospitals, 2013 IL App (1st) 111466 (Jun. 28, 2013)


ANSWER TO QUIZ: Insurer wins. While Insurer did not use Form 3877, it used a privately printed form that contained all the same information as Form 3877, which had been accepted by the USPO. Here, since there was no genuine dispute as to whether Policy was cancelled, there was no possibility of coverage and Insurer was not estopped from raising a cancellation defense. Hunt vState Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2013 IL App (1st) 120561 (Jun. 28, 2013)

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