Combined Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters
Decision Date | 31 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 1-04-0344.,1-04-0344. |
Citation | 292 Ill.Dec. 653,826 N.E.2d 1089,356 Ill. App.3d 749 |
Parties | COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, subscribing to Reinsurance Contract No. BK0030050 for the 12-month period incepting on April 30, 2001, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Chicago (Constantine L. Trela, Holly A. Harrison, Lori L. Roeser and Ryan M. Sandrock, of counsel), for Appellant.
Lord, Bissell & Brook LLP, Chicago (Nick J. DiGiovanni, Molly McGinnis Stine and Hugh S. Balsam, of counsel), for Appellee.
The plaintiff, Combined Insurance Company of America (Combined), appeals the trial court's decision to grant the motion under section 2-619(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (West 2002)) motion to dismiss of the defendant, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, subscribing to reinsurance contract No. BK0030050 for the 12-month period incepting on April 30, 2001 (Under-writers). On appeal, Combined argues that the trial court erred when it granted Underwriters' motion to dismiss because it did not follow the standards enunciated in A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. v. Swift & Co., 84 Ill.2d 245, 50 Ill.Dec. 156, 419 N.E.2d 23 (1981). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and remand this matter.
Combined issued to its parent corporation, Aon Corporation (Aon), an insurance policy that was effective April 30, 2000. The policy provided accidental-death-and-dismemberment coverage to Aon employees. The Aon policy was drafted, negotiated, and executed in Illinois and expressly provides that it is governed by the laws of the State of Illinois.
On April 14, 2000, Combined and Underwriters entered into a reinsurance contract with respect to the Aon policy. This reinsurance contract was issued for the period of April 30, 2000, to April 30, 2001. Thereafter, it was extended through April 30, 2003. On September 11, 2001, 176 Aon employees died at Aon's offices at the World Trade Center, during the terrorist attacks on the United States. Combined paid approximately $95 million to the families or beneficiaries of the victims of the events of that day.
On October 31, 2001, Underwriters consented to the payment of the Aon claims by Combined, but specifically reserved its right to consent to coverage under the reinsurance contract. On November 9, 2001, Underwriters filed a civil action in commercial court in London, England, seeking declaratory relief based on the language of the reinsurance contract. Underwriters sought a declaration that it was not liable to indemnify Combined with respect to any liability that it might have arising out of the deaths of any eligible persons who were not engaged in business travel at the time that they perished on September 11, 2001.
On November 13, 2001, Combined filed a competing action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in reliance on section 408(b)(3) of the then recently enacted Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Pub.L. No. 107-42, 115 Stat. 230 (2001)(codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101)). While this New York action was pending, Combine applied to stay the London action, on December 10, 2001.
Thereafter, the parties agreed to enjoin the London action until there was a resolution of the New York case. At this time, Combined also informed the court in London that if it lost the New York action, it would consider filing an action in Illinois. In response, the London court informed Combined that, "It is a most unattractive position because it is just another way of postponing things."
With regard to the New York action, Underwriters responded to Combined's complaint by filing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 10, 2002, the New York district court dismissed Combine's action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Combined appealed the matter, and on August 22, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in a nonpublished summary order.
Thereafter, on September 11, 2003, Combined filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois. Combined sought a declaration of the parties' rights and obligations under the reinsurance contract and to recover damages as a result of Underwriters' alleged breach of the reinsurance contract. Subsequently, on October 13, 2003, Combined requested that the London court stay further proceedings in favor of the Illinois action. However, the London court refused to do so.
On November 20, 2003, Underwriters filed a "motion to dismiss or stay this action pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3) or, in the alternative, to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens." On January 16, 2004, after hearing extensive arguments from both parties, the trial court granted Underwriters' motion, dismissing the case on section 2-619(a)(3) grounds in favor of the London action. The trial court's specific ruling on Underwriters' section 2-619(a)(3) motion to dismiss follows:
Thereafter, on February 5, 2004, Combined timely filed its notice of appeal.
Combined argues that the trial court erred when it granted Underwriters' motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3). Generally, motions to dismiss do not require the trial court to weigh facts or determine credibility, and, as a result, our review is de novo. Overnite Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, 332 Ill.App.3d 69, 73, 265 Ill.Dec. 664, 773 N.E.2d 26 (2002); Miller v. Thomas, 275 Ill.App.3d 779, 786, 211 Ill.Dec. 897, 656 N.E.2d 89 (1995). However, a section 2-619(a)(3) motion seeking dismissal is inherently procedural and urges the trial court to weigh several factors to determine whether it is appropriate for the action to proceed. Overnite Transportation Co.,332 Ill.App.3d at 73,265 Ill.Dec. 664,773 N.E.2d 26; Miller, 275 Ill.App.3d at 786,211 Ill.Dec. 897,656 N.E.2d 89. Thus, we apply an abuse of discretion standard of review to a trial court's decision to dismiss a case pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3). Overnite Transportation Co.,332 Ill.App.3d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carr v. Tillery
...Co. v. Swift & Co., 84 Ill.2d 245, 50 Ill.Dec. 156, 419 N.E.2d 23, 27 (1980); Combined Ins. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 356 Ill.App.3d 749, 292 Ill.Dec. 653, 826 N.E.2d 1089, 1097 (2005); compare Skipper Marine Electronics, Inc. v. Cybernet Marine Products, 200 Ill. App.3......
-
Murugesh v. Kasilingam
...¶ 46 It is the policy of Illinois to avoid duplicative litigation. See Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 356 Ill.App.3d 749, 756, 292 Ill.Dec. 653, 826 N.E.2d 1089 (2005). However, that policy does not require Illinois courts to force litigants in......
-
Village of Bensenville v. City of Chicago
...furthers judicial economy by avoiding duplicative litigation." Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 356 Ill.App.3d 749, 753, 292 Ill. Dec. 653, 826 N.E.2d 1089 (2005). "With respect to whether the actions are for the same cause, the crucial inquiry i......
-
Performance Network Solutions, Inc. v. Cyberklix US, Inc., 1–11–0137.
...trial court, unlike motions under other subsections of section 2–619. Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 356 Ill.App.3d 749, 754, 292 Ill.Dec. 653, 826 N.E.2d 1089 (2005). The purpose of section 2–619(a)(3) is to avoid duplicative litigation. In re......