Essex Ins. Co. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn
Decision Date | 31 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14-cv-4572,14-cv-4572 |
Citation | 189 F.Supp.3d 779 |
Parties | Essex Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Village of Oak Lawn, Todd Tenison, and Scott Kirk, Defendants. Village of Oak Lawn, Todd Tenison, and Scott Kirk, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Amanda Michelle Buishas, Samuel Robert Stalker, William K. McVisk, Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Rachael G. Winthrop, Ellen Louise Green, Victor J. Piekarski, Clay H. Phillips, SmithAmundsen LLC, Chicago, IL, Bethanie Legare Berube, SmithAmundsen, Chicago, ID, for Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendant.
Christopher S. Naveja, Hal R. Morris, Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Chicago, IL, Arthur L. Janura, Jr., Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Hoffman Estates, IL, for Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs.
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). (R.100, R.104). Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company ("Essex") seeks a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify its insured, Defendant Village of Oak Lawn ("Village" or "Oak Lawn"), because Oak Lawn breached the notice condition of Essex's insurance policy with respect to an underlying lawsuit. (R.100). Third-Party Defendant Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. ("CCMSI") seeks a declaration that it provided timely notice of that lawsuit to Essex on behalf of Oak Lawn. (R.104). Oak Lawn joins CCMSI's motion.
For the following reasons, the Court grants CCMSI's motion and denies Essex's cross-motion. In light of this disposition, the Court denies as moot Oak Lawn's motion to defer or, alternatively, to extend the filing of dispositive motions directed to the Third-Party Complaint. (R.94).1
In this action, Essex seeks a declaration that it has no duty to indemnify Defendants with respect to an action filed against them by Charles Petrishe, Nikki Caputo-Petrishe, and Dianne McGann in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Nikki Caputo-Petrishe et al. v. Oak Lawn Police Officers Todd Tenison and Scott Kirk et al. , 1:10-cv-7950 (the "Underlying Action"). . )2 The Underlying Action resulted in a $3 million settlement agreement between the parties, with Defendants' two insurance companies—Essex and non-party Illinois Union Insurance Company ("ACE")—paying out $1 million and $2 million, respectively. . Essex now seeks to recoup that $1 million payment, along with applicable interest, pursuant to a Non-Waiver Agreement that it entered into with Oak Lawn as a condition precedent to settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 38-39; R.37, Second Am. Compl. at Prayer for Relief; R.37-A, Non-Waiver Agreement). The Non-Waiver Agreement provides, in relevant part, that Essex's contribution to the underlying settlement "is without prejudice, shall not be deemed a waiver or estoppel against Essex of its rights and defenses under the Essex Policy, and shall not be otherwise used against Essex in any action," including this action. (R.37-A, Non-Waiver Agreement at ¶ 2).3 Essex now argues that: (i) it is entitled to a finding that Oak Lawn breached its insurance policy; and (ii) Oak Lawn must therefore reimburse Essex for its settlement payment under the Non-Waiver Agreement. Oak Lawn disagrees, arguing that it did not breach the insurance policy and therefore has no obligation to reimburse Essex.
This case concerns the interpretation of two insurance policies issued to Oak Lawn. The Court addresses each policy, in turn.
First, ACE issued to Oak Lawn Public Entity Retained Limits Policy number PEP G2488529A, covering a policy period of March 15, 2010 to March 15, 2011 (the "ACE Policy"). . The ACE Policy had a liability limit of $2 million per occurrence and $5 million in the aggregate, and was excess over the Village's self-insured retention ("SIR") of $150,000. . The ACE Policy contained the following notice condition (the "ACE Notice Condition"):
. 4 The ACE Policy also included the following insuring agreement:
.
Second, Essex issued to Oak Lawn Excess Liability Policy number XOMW120310, covering a policy period of March 15, 2010 to March 15, 2011 (the "Essex Policy"). . The Essex Policy had a liability limit of $10 million per occurrence and $10 million in the aggregate, and was excess over other underlying policies, including the ACE Policy. . The Essex Policy contained an insuring agreement, which provided that Essex:
hereby agrees to pay on behalf of the insured that portion of Ultimate Net Loss in excess of the limits of Underlying Insurance as shown in Item 4, of the Declarations, but only up to an amount not exceeding the Company's Limit of Liability as shown in Item 3 of the Declarations. Except for the Terms, Definitions, Conditions and Exclusions of this policy, the coverage provided by this policy shall follow the Insuring Agreements, Definitions, Conditions and Exclusions of the Controlling Underlying Insurance Policy as shown in Item 4 of the Declarations.
. The Essex Policy also contained the following condition (the "Notice Condition"):
Duties in the Event of Accident, Occurrence, Claim or Suit.
You must see to it that we or our authorized representative and your underlying insurers:
In addition, it is a requirement of this policy that:
. The Essex Policy further contained the following condition (the "Defense Condition"):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ruebe v. Partnerre Ir. Ins. DAC, Case No. 18-cv-01192
...474, 492 (2013) ; see also Kajima Const. Servs. , 227 Ill. 2d at 117, 316 Ill.Dec. 238, 879 N.E.2d 305 ; Essex Ins. Co. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn , 189 F. Supp. 3d 779, 791 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (citation omitted); Homeland Ins. Co. of New York v. Health Care Serv. Corp. , 330 F.R.D. 180, 181–82 (N.D......
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Inetworks Servs., LLC
...diligence in ascertaining whether the policy coverage is available; and (5) prejudice to the insurer."5 Essex Ins. Co. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn, 189 F.Supp.3d 779, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (citing cases); see also Great American E&S Ins. Co. v. Power Cell LLC, 356 F. Supp. 3d 730 (N.D. Ill. 2018). ......
-
Wesco Ins. Co. v. Wood
...diligence in ascertaining whether policy coverage is available; and (5) prejudice to the insurer." Essex Ins. Co. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn, 189 F. Supp. 3d 779, 790 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (citing cases). "A proper analysis of the sufficiency of notice is whether the notice given objectively complied ......