Essex Ins. Co. v. Galilee Med. Ctr. SC
| Decision Date | 23 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11–cv–6934 |
| Citation | 988 F.Supp.2d 866 |
| Parties | Essex Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Galilee Medical Center SC, d/b/a MRI Lincoln Imaging Center, and Luis Angarita, M.D., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Amy Julia Collins, Catherine M. Crisham, Bridget M. Curry, Paula M. Carstensen, Bates Carey Nicolaides LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Norman P. Jeddeloh, Edmond Jason Tremblay, Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, James John Stamos, Benjamin F. Klimek, Daniel Richard Shaffer, Stamos & Trucco LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Essex Insurance Company (“Essex”) has brought this action against Defendants, Galilee Medical Center SC, d/b/a MRI Lincoln Imaging Center (“Galilee”), and Luis Angarita, M.D. (“Angarita”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Essex has moved for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that it is entitled to a rescission of an insurance policy that was issued to Galilee due to material misrepresentations made by Defendants in their applications for the policy, or in the alternative, that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Defendants with respect to an underlying state court lawsuit.1 Defendants have also filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, requesting a determination that Essex has a duty to defend them. For the reasons set out below, Essex's Motion is granted, and Defendants' Motions are denied.
Essex is an insurance company, organized in Delaware and with a principal place of business in Glen Allen, Virginia. Galilee, a medical center, is an Illinois corporation with a principal place of businessin Chicago, Illinois. Angarita, a doctor, is a citizen of Illinois. (Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement of Uncontested Material Facts (“SOF”) ¶¶ 1–3.) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). This dispute centers on whether Essex must defend or indemnify Angarita or Galilee, pursuant to a professional liability insurance policy, with respect to a lawsuit currently pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Ravelo v. Angarita, et al., No. 11 L 006675 (the “ Ravelo lawsuit”).
In the Ravelo lawsuit, Rosa Ravelo, a former patient of Angarita, has sued Angarita and Galilee for medical negligence based on mesotherapy treatments recommended and administered to her by Angarita. (SOF ¶¶ 6–8; see also Ravelo Second Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 101–3.) Mesotherapy is a non-surgical medical treatment involving injection of medications, including phosphatydylcholine, into subcutaneous layers of fat. (SOF ¶ 13.) Neither mesotherapy nor phosphatydylcholine injections have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for any purpose.3 (SOF ¶¶ 14–15.) According to Angarita, (Angarita's Rule 56.1(b)(3)(c) Statement of Additional Facts (“ASAF”) ¶ 2.) By his own admissions, Angarita “has provided mesotherapy treatment to over 5,000 patients during his career.” ( Id. ¶ 1.)
Ravelo has alleged that Angarita administered mesotherapy treatments to her, at 3 E. Quincy St. in Riverside, Illinois, from November 15, 2008 through July 30, 2009, and that as a result, she developed painful, blister-like, infected granulomas on her body. (SOF ¶¶ 17–18; see also Ravelo Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”), Dkt. No. 101–3.) 4 Angarita has admitted that: (1) he recommended mesotherapy; (2) he administered mesotherapy to Ravelo at his residence at 3 E. Quincy St. in Riverside, Illinois; and (3) the FDA has not approved mesotherapy for any purpose. ( See SOF ¶ 17; Galilee's Resp. to SOF (“Galilee's Resp.”) ¶ 17; see also Angarita Resp. Brief at 3.) Ravelo has sued Angarita and Galilee, d/b/a/ Affiliated Physicians, alleging that she has incurred severe and permanent injuries and seeking damages in excess of $50,000.
Essex issued a professional liability insurance policy, policy number SM–878273, to Galilee for the period of March 1, 2011 to March 1, 2012 (the “Essex policy”). (SOF ¶ 23.) Galilee Medical Center SC DBA: MRI Lincoln Imaging Center is the named insured under the policy. (SOF ¶ 24.) Under the Essex policy, Essex is obligated to pay for claims against the “Insured” for “Professional Personal Injury by reason of any act, error or omission in Professional Services,” provided that, prior to the effective date of the policy, that the insured had no knowledge of such claims. (SOF ¶ 26.) The Essex policy defines “Insured” as Galilee and “any principal, partners, officer, director, employee .... solely while acting on behalf of [Galilee] and within the scope of his/her duties as such.” (SOF ¶ 25.) The Essex policy restricts coverage to seven specified office locations within Chicago, Illinois; Angarita's address at 3 E. Quincy St., Riverside, Illinois is not one of those locations. (SOF ¶ 32–33.)
Both Galilee and Angarita submitted applications to Essex in support of Galilee's policy request; those applications contained a notice that the application would be considered part of the policy and that Essex would rely on the information submitted in issuing the policy. (SOF ¶¶ 34–38.) 5 The Essex policy contained a condition that, by accepting the policy, Galilee agreed that those applications were part of the policy and that Essex had relied on the truth of the representations in the applications and deemed the representations material to the acceptance of the risk assumed by Essex. (SOF ¶ 31.)
In its application, Galilee answered “No” to the following question: “Does the Applicant's employees or independent contractors [u]se drugs for weight reduction for patients?” (SOF ¶ 36.) The application further stated, “If Yes, attach a list of drugs used and percentage of practice devoted to weight reduction”; Galilee did not identify any such drugs. (SOF ¶ 36.) Galilee also answered “No” to the question of whether its employees or independent contractors performed any experimental procedures or research testing, and whether those experimental procedures were FDA approved. (SOF ¶ 36.) Likewise, Angarita answered “No” as follows to these questions on his application:
With the exception of surgery for obesity, does your practice include weight reduction or control by other [ sic ] than diet or exercise? ... [ ] Yes [X] No
* * *
5.(b) Do you dispense any drugs? ... [ ] Yes [X] No
* * *
5.(c) Do you use injections for weight control? ... [ ] Yes [X] No
* * *
9.(a) Do you use experimental procedures, devices, drugs or therapy in treatment or surgery? ... [ ] Yes [X] No
(SOF ¶ 39 (emphasis added).) Frances O'Connell, the managing director of Markel Services, Incorporated, which is the underwriting manager for Essex, has submitted an affidavit stating that if Galilee and Angarita had answered “Yes” to those questions above, Essex would not have issued the Essex policy to Galilee or would have issued it for a much higher premium than the premium charged. (SOF ¶ 41.)
Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying the evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on conclusory pleadings but “must present sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the burden at trial.” Serfecz v. Jewel Food Stores, 67 F.3d 591, 596 (7th Cir.1995) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585–86, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment; nor is a metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Robin v. ESPO Eng'g Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088 (7th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Rather, the evidence must be such “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Pugh v. City of Attica, Ind., 259 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir.2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 773 (7th Cir.2005) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505). The court does not make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. Id.
As the parties agree, Illinois substantive law governs this diversity case. See, e.g.,Tanner v. Jupiter Realty Corp., 433 F.3d 913, 915 (7th Cir.2006). Under Section 154 of the Illinois Insurance Code, 215 ILCS 5/154 (“Section 154”), an insurance company may deny coverage, inter alia, because of a misrepresentation in an insurance application where the misrepresentation “materially affects either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the company.” 215 ILCS 5/154.6 A misrepresentation is “a statement of something as a fact which is untrue and affects the risk taken by the insurer.” Methodist Medical Center v. American Medical Sec. Inc., 38 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Ratcliffe v. Int'l Surplus Lines Co., 194 Ill.App.3d 18, 141 Ill.Dec. 6, 550 N.E.2d 1052, 1057 (1990)). Failing to disclose material information...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Harrington
...not disclosed on the initial application. Such a failure to disclose constitutes a misrepresentation.Essex Ins. Co. v. Galilee Medical Center SC, 988 F. Supp. 2d 866, 871 (N.D. Ill. 2013). And Harrington made further misrepresentations in failing to disclose his chiropractic treatments. It ......