Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc.
Citation | 19 N.E.3d 1100 |
Decision Date | 30 September 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 1–12–3339.,1–12–3339. |
Parties | CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff–Appellee and Cross–Appellant, v. TRACY'S TREASURES, INC., and Paul Idlas, Defendants–Appellants and Cross–Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Anderson & Wanca, of Rolling Meadows (Brian J. Wanca, David M. Oppenheim, and Jeffrey A. Berman, of counsel), and Bock & Hatch, LLC, of Chicago (Phillip A. Bock and Robert M. Hatch, of counsel), for appellants.
Purcell & Wardrope, of Chicago (Michael D. Sanders, of counsel), and Rivkin, Radler, LLP, of Uniondale, New York (William M. Savino, Stephen J. Smirti, Jr., and M. Paul Gorfinkel, of counsel), for appellee.
delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 This insurance declaratory action raises issues regarding: (1) whether coverage is available for an underlying class action alleging claims for unsolicited faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1) (2006)
); (2) the reasonableness of a settlement in the underlying action between the insured and the underlying plaintiffs, which those parties stipulated would be paid from the proceeds of the insurance policies; and (3) whether the “buyout” of coverage under the insurance policies, which resulted from a settlement of a prior class action against the insured, precludes claims under the “advertising injury” coverage of these policies. Due to an intervening change in the law that formed the basis of the trial court's ruling in favor of plaintiff and cross-appellant, Central Mutual Insurance Company, we must reverse. We affirm the other rulings appealed by Central and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 3 Tracy's Treasures, Inc., is the insured under a number of primary and excess commercial liability policies issued by Central. Central insured Tracy's under a series of business owner primary liability insurance policies, cumulatively effective from May 5, 1997, until May 5, 2005, and a series of commercial excess liability insurance policies, cumulatively effective from January 29, 2002, until January 29, 2005. The face value of all of Central's policies of insurance in effect during the relevant time period is $14 million.
¶ 4 Tracy's and Paul Idlas, the plaintiff in the underlying class action, appeal from an order of the trial court granting Central's motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined, in accordance with the decision in Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay , 2012 IL App (4th) 110527, 363 Ill.Dec. 790, 975 N.E.2d 1099
, that amounts awarded to claimants under the TCPA are punitive in nature and therefore not insurable. After the filing of this appeal, our supreme court reversed Lay and held that damages awarded for TCPA claims are liquidated rather than punitive and, thus, are not uninsurable as a matter of public policy. Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay, 2013 IL 114617, 371 Ill.Dec. 1, 989 N.E.2d 591.
¶ 5 Central concedes the applicability of the supreme court's decision in Lay but argues that liquidated damages, such as those provided for under the TCPA, are not covered under its policies. Central also advances other provisions of its policies as a bar to coverage for TCPA claims. Finally, Central cross-appeals from two rulings denying its motions for summary judgment: (1) in one motion for summary judgment, Central sought a determination that the settlement reached between its insured and Idlas was, as a matter of law, collusive and unreasonable under the standards articulated by our supreme court in Guillen v. Potomac Insurance Co. of Illinois, 203 Ill.2d 141, 271 Ill.Dec. 350, 785 N.E.2d 1 (2003)
; (2) Central also sought summary judgment on the ground that the insurance contracts had been reformed to eliminate coverage for “advertising injury” or “personal and advertising injury.” Both motions were denied by the trial court.
¶ 7 Tracy's engaged in the business of selling dating and social relationship services, which it publicized, at least in part, by facsimile advertisements. On March 5, 2007, Idlas filed a three-count class action complaint against Tracy's for unsolicited fax advertisements that allegedly violated the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2006)
), and Illinois common law (Idlas ). Idlas alleged that between March 5, 2003 and March 5, 2007, Tracy's sent unsolicited facsimile messages advertising Tracy's dating services without prior express permission from the recipients. Idlas received his unsolicited fax on July 22, 2003, and waited almost four years to seek redress.
¶ 8 Tracy's tendered Idlas's claims to Central pursuant to the insurance contracts. On April 27, 2007, Central disclaimed coverage for the claims asserted in Idlas on several grounds, including that (i) in 2005 the parties had agreed to a “buyout” of the coverage for personal and advertising injury, (ii) no “occurrence” giving rise to “property damage” was alleged in Idlas, (iii) any injury caused by the faxes sent by Tracy's was expected or intended by Tracy's, and (iv) Tracy's knew that its conduct in sending the faxes was prohibited.
¶ 9 Despite Central's denial of coverage, it advised Tracy's on October 8, 2007, that it was assigning a lawyer to provide Tracy's a “courtesy defense.” Counsel appointed by Central filed an appearance in the case. Billing records for assigned counsel reflect that he filed a motion to dismiss and discovery requests. The record on appeal does not contain the motion, but counsel's records reflect that portions of the Idlas complaint were dismissed with leave to replead. On June 6, 2007, Central also filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court of Cook County seeking an adjudication that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Tracy's in connection with Idlas.
¶ 10 On November 29, 2007, another lawyer, Gregory Ellis, filed a substitute appearance on behalf of Tracy's. Two weeks later, on December 12, 2007, Ellis wrote to Central regarding the substitution. Ellis advised that Tracy's retained him due to the conflict between Central and Tracy's in light of Central's position that the Idlas claims were not covered under its policies. In his letter, Ellis described to Central his planned defense of the case:
¶ 11 On December 17, 2007, Central consented to the substitution of counsel and indicated that it would pay Ellis a reasonable fee (albeit at an hourly rate less than Ellis's normal billing rate). Central reserved the right to discontinue paying for Tracy's defense on reasonable notice to Tracy's. The record does not reflect that Tracy's ever complained about the rate Central was paying Ellis or informed Central that its decision to pay less than Ellis's normal billing rate constituted a breach of its obligations to Tracy's under the policies. The record also does not reflect whether Tracy's paid Ellis the difference between his hourly rate and the rate at which he was being paid by Central.
¶ 12 Correspondence in the record indicates that a month before he wrote to Central and even before he filed an appearance for Tracy's, Ellis was discussing settlement with counsel for Idlas. On November 15, 2007, two weeks before he filed his substitute appearance and nearly a month before he claimed to be “transitioning into” the lawsuit, Ellis wrote to Tracy Choubmesser, president and sole shareholder of Tracy's, informing her:
¶ 13 In a November 27, 2007 letter to Idlas's attorney, Ellis wrote, And in a December 10, 2007 letter to Choubmesser, Ellis wrote:
“In order to prepare the Settlement Agreement that we have discussed, we will need additional information regarding these fax providers to use in your Affidavit in support of this settlement.”
¶ 14 Ellis failed to disclose the ongoing settlement negotiations in his December 12, 2007 letter to Central.
¶ 15 On January 25, 2008, six weeks after he wrote to Central, Ellis, on behalf of Tracy's, and counsel for Idlas filed with the Lake County circuit court a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement providing for entry of a $14 million judgment against Tracy's, which was enforceable only against Central's policies. No notice of the motion was provided to Central. On February 5, 2008, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.
¶ 16 In their motion, as well as in other materials submitted in support, counsel for Tracy's and Idlas represented:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Andrew v. Century Sur. Co.
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Hieber
...public that is negligently injured”); Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 123339, ¶ 103, 385 Ill.Dec. 904, 19 N.E.3d 1100 (noting no public policy requires those who advertise their business through electronic transmissions to carry liability insurance......
- People v. Steele
-
Rogers Cartage Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...faith, fraud, or collusion. Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy's Treasures, Inc. , 2014 IL App (1st) 123339, ¶ 79, 385 Ill.Dec. 904, 19 N.E.3d 1100. "[A]ny negotiated settlement involves cooperation to a degree," and a settlement only "becomes collusive when the purpose is to injure the ......
-
CHAPTER 10 Directors and Officers Liability and Professional Liability Insurance
...Co., 988 So.2d 708 (Fla. App. 2008). Illinois: Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy’s Treasures, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 123339, 19 N.E.3d 1100, 385 Ill. Dec. 904 (2014). Massachusetts: Terra Nova Insurance Co. v. Fray-Witzer, 449 Mass. 406, 869 N.E.2d 565 (2007) (Under New Jersey law, sta......
-
Chapter 9
...Co., 988 So.2d 708 (Fla. App. 2008). Illinois: Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tracy’s Treasures, Inc., 2014 IL App (1st) 123339, 19 N.E.3d 1100, 385 Ill. Dec. 904 (2014). Massachusetts: Terra Nova Insurance Co. v. Fray-Witzer, 449 Mass. 406, 869 N.E.2d 565 (2007) (Under New Jersey law, sta......