Emerson Elec. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-98-4780, No. 1-98-4762, No. 1-99-244. |
| Citation | 319 Ill.App.3d 218,252 Ill.Dec. 761,743 N.E.2d 629 |
| Parties | EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Appleton Electric Company, Automatic Switch Company, Branson Ultrasonics Corporation, Commercial Cam Co., Inc., Copeland Corporation, Emerson Power Transmission Corporation, Midwest Component, Inc., Metaloy, Inc., Micro Motion, Inc., PEPT Corporation (formerly Skil Corporation), Ridge Tool Company, Therm-O-Disc Incorporated and Western Forge Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Allstate Insurance Company (as successor by merger to Northbrook Excess & Surplus Insurance Company), American Casualty Company of Reading, Pa., American Home Assurance Company, American International Underwriters (AIU) Insurance Company, California Union Insurance Company, Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's London, Chicago Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company, Columbia Casualty Company, Commercial Union Insurance Company (formerly Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company), The Continental Insurance Company (as itself and as successor to Harbor Insurance Company), Continental Casualty, Company Employer's Casualty Company, Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Employers Reinsurance Corporation, Excess Insurance Company, Ltd., Federal Insurance Company, First State Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Highlands Insurance Company, The Home Insurance Company, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Lexington Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., North State Reinsurance Corporation, Republic Insurance Company, Transport Insurance Company (as successor of the liabilities of Transport Indemnity Company), The Travelers Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company, Westchester Insurance Company (as successor to International Insurance Company), Westport Insurance Corporation (as successor to Puritan Insurance Company, formerly Manhattan Fire and Marine Insurance Company), and Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Kevin M. Forde, Mary Anne Mason, Janice R. Forde, Kathleen K. Cirrincione, Kevin M. Forde, Ltd., Chicago; Jerold Oshinsky, Stephen G. Weil, David L. Engelhardt, Keisha A. Gary, Michael S. Kimberling, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for appellants.
Maria G. Enriquez, Thomas J. O'Brien, Dawn M. Gonzalez, Bates Meckler Bulger & Tilson, Chicago, for Republic Insurance Company.
Williams & Montgomery Ltd., Chicago (David E. Neumeister, Anthony P. Katauskas, Mary A. Sliwinski and Lloyd E. Williams, of counsel), for Home Insurance. William G. Stone, Douglas W. Walker, Christian D. Ambler, Stone & Moore Chtd., Chicago, for Commercial Union Insurance Company.
Michael R. Orlando, Cohn & Baughman, Chicago, for Central National Insurance Company of Omaha.
These three consolidated appeals arise from a declaratory judgment action initially filed by plaintiff Emerson Electric Co. (Emerson) and 15 of its subsidiaries against 57 insurers. In their suit, plaintiffs sought a determination that the insurers owed coverage for liabilities resulting from environmental contamination at 60-some sites throughout the United States. In September 1997, six months after filing their second amended complaint, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against one of the defendants, Republic Insurance Company (Republic), as to one of the contamination sites, in Hatfield, Pennsylvania. Subsequently a group of defendants, including Republic, Commercial Union Insurance Company (Commercial Union), and The Home Insurance Company (Home) moved for summary judgment as to the contamination sites at Erie and York, Pennsylvania, with defendant Central National Insurance Company of Omaha (Central National) joining only the motion as to the York site. Republic and Home also moved for summary judgment as to a fourth site, at Maysville, Kentucky, and Republic moved for summary judgment as to a fifth site, at Dixiana, South Carolina.
In February 1998 the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Republic as to the Hatfield, Pennsylvania, site. The court subsequently certified that interlocutory order for appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (155 Ill.2d R. 308), certifying the following question for appeal: "[D]id Plaintiffs satisfy the burden of proving an `occurrence,' as defined in Defendants' policies?" Plaintiffs applied for leave to appeal, which this court granted. That appeal is No. 98-4762.
In orders entered in the latter part of 1998, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to the other four sites: Erie and York, Pennsylvania; Maysville, Kentucky; and Dixiana, South Carolina. Specifically, the court granted summary judgment in favor of: (1) Republic as to the sites in Erie and York, Pennsylvania, Maysville, Kentucky, and Dixiana, South Carolina; (2) Home as to the Erie and York sites and the Maysville, Kentucky, site; (3) Commercial Union as to the Erie and York sites; and (4) Central National as to the York site. In a series of orders entered December 10, 1998, the trial court made all but one of those judgments appealable pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 Ill.2d R. 304(a)). Plaintiffs' appeal of those judgments, filed December 21, 1998, is docketed at No. 98-4780. On January 7, 1999, the trial court made the remaining judgment (the granting of summary judgment in favor of Home as to the York, Pennsylvania, site) appealable pursuant to Rule 304(a). Plaintiffs' appeal from that judgment is docketed at No. 99-244.
Four plaintiffs are involved in the instant appeals. They are Emerson Electric Company (Emerson), Emerson Power Transmission Corporation (Emerson Transmission), Ridge Tool Company (Ridge Tool), and Therm-O-Disc, Incorporated (Therm-O-Disc). The appeals at bar involve these plaintiffs' claims for coverage against the four previously identified defendants (Republic, Home, Commercial Union, and Central National) for liabilities arising from damage at five contamination sites which, as noted, are at Hatfield, York, and Erie Pennsylvania; Maysville, Kentucky; and Dixiana, South Carolina.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Home and Commercial Union as to the Erie, Pennsylvania, site (appeal No. 98-4780), and in favor of Home (appeal No. 99-244) and Commercial Union (appeal No. 98-4780) as to the York, Pennsylvania, site; we affirm the granting of summary judgment in favor of Republic as to its 1984-1985 policy with regard to the Erie and York sites (appeal No. 98-4780); and we affirm the granting of summary judgment in favor of Central National as to the York site (appeal No. 98-4780).
We reverse the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Republic as to its 1983-1984 policy with regard to the York and Erie sites (appeal No. 98-4780); we reverse the granting of summary judgment in favor of Republic and Home as to the Maysville, Kentucky, site (appeal No. 98-4780); we reverse the granting of summary judgment in favor of Republic as to the Dixiana, South Carolina, site (appeal No. 98-4780); and we reverse the denial of Emerson's motion for summary judgment against Republic as to the Hatfield, Pennsylvania, site (appeal No. 98-4762), and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case began in March 1993 with the filing of plaintiffs' initial complaint for declaratory judgment and other relief. Plaintiff Emerson Electric Company (Emerson) and 15 of its subsidiaries filed suit against 57 insurers seeking coverage under certain comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies issued by defendant insurers from at least 1941 to 1985. The initial complaint was predicated upon underlying actions charging plaintiffs with liability for environmental property damage at 60-some sites located in 26 states. Plaintiffs sought coverage for that liability pursuant to the defense and indemnity obligations in defendant insurers' policies. As the litigation progressed, the number of parties and the number of sites diminished, primarily through settlements and dismissals.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint for declaratory judgment, filed in 1997, contains essentially the same allegations as their initial and first amended complaints. In the second amended complaint, Emerson and 13 of its subsidiaries (hereinafter referred to collectively as Emerson or plaintiffs) sued some 37 insurers seeking coverage under certain primary and excess liability policies issued since 1941. The second amended complaint was predicated upon underlying actions charging plaintiffs with liability for environmental property damage at some 47 sites in 22 states.1 Plaintiffs allege that they have incurred more than $18.4 million in defense costs and damages, and they anticipate "significant further expenditures." According to plaintiffs, with the exception of one defendant, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, which paid $2,617.73 to the Skil Corporation (now plaintiff PEPT Corporation) in connection with defense costs associated with a site in Indiana, no defendant has paid any amount to plaintiffs in connection with any site, nor has any defendant assumed the defense of any plaintiff in connection with any site.
Included in the second amended complaint and its attached exhibits are descriptive listings of the parties and the contamination sites, as well as a listing of the insurance policies at issue. Because the instant appeals involve just four plaintiffs and their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ace Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins.
...stated above, almost all premium payments were issued from Ace's Indianapolis office on an Indiana bank account. Emerson, 319 Ill.App.3d at 233, 252 Ill.Dec. 761, 743 N.E.2d 629 citing 4 APPLEMAN ON INSURANCE 2d § 21.6, at 278 (1998)(typically, last act required to make policy effective tak......
-
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Mall
...not have equal significance and are to be weighed according to the issue involved. Emerson Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 319 Ill.App.3d 218, 232, 252 Ill.Dec. 761, 743 N.E.2d 629, 640 (2001). At least some of the factors in a choice-of-law analysis “will point in different di......
-
Amex Assurance Co. v. Giordano
...and the premiums were paid. See Westchester Fire, 254 Ill.Dec. at 550, 747 N.E.2d at 962;Emerson Elec. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 319 Ill.App.3d 218, 252 Ill.Dec. 761, 743 N.E.2d 629, 640–41 (2001). Finally, the place of performance is Maryland because any claims paid on the Policy would......
-
G.M. Sign, Inc. v. Pennswood Partners, Inc.
...rules of the forum state, Illinois, to determine which state's law should apply. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 319 Ill.App.3d 218, 232, 252 Ill.Dec. 761, 743 N.E.2d 629 (2001). If an insurance policy does not specify a choice of law, the determination is generally......