Hudson Ins. Co. v. Gelman Sciences Inc.
Decision Date | 20 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 88 C 4369.,88 C 4369. |
Citation | 706 F. Supp. 25 |
Parties | HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. GELMAN SCIENCES INC., a corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
John W. Morrison and Jeffrey T. Kraus, Altheimer & Gray, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Gary L. Starkman, Brian D. Vandenberg, David Fink, Michael Caldwell, Arvey, Hodes, Costello & Burman, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Hudson Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in New York. From August 1, 1984 to August 1, 1985, Hudson provided Gelman Sciences, Inc., a Michigan-based corporation, with excess umbrella liability coverage in the amount of $4 million. This policy sat atop various other policies issued by other companies to Gelman, including a primary comprehensive general liability policy issued by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, a primary products and completed operations liability policy issued by Central National Insurance Company, and a $20 million excess umbrella liability policy issued by Mission National Insurance Company. Gelman obtained the Hudson policy through a Michigan agent who in turn contacted an Illinois-based wholesale insurance broker. The insurance policy was stamped countersigned and initialed on behalf of Hudson in Illinois, then delivered to the insurance broker in Chicago.
The Mission policy was in excess of Gelman's primary insurance coverage, including that provided by Fireman's Fund and Central National. After Hudson issued its policy to Gelman, however, Mission became insolvent. A California court subsequently liquidated Mission in 1987, and thus Mission is unable to provide Gelman with its promised excess umbrella liability coverage. This is unfortunate for Gelman, as it presently faces four lawsuits which Gelman anticipates will exhaust its primary coverage under the Fireman's Fund and Central National policies. Gelman thus has demanded on several occasions that Hudson "drop down" from its position as Gelman's second excess umbrella liability carrier and assume Mission's obligations. Gelman also has asked Hudson to defend Gelman in the four suits. Hudson has refused all of these requests.
Tired of Gelman's demands, Hudson has sought a declaratory judgment in two counts before this court. Gelman has counterclaimed. Hudson has moved for summary judgment on Count 1 of its Amended Complaint and on Count 2 of Gelman's counterclaim. Both counts focus solely on Hudson's duties to drop down and to defend.
The parties agree that, for purposes of this motion, Illinois law governs this dispute. See Hudson Insurance Company v. Gelman Sciences, Inc., No. 88 C 4369 (Minute Order August 17, 1988) (canvassing why Illinois law will apply to issues of interpretation of the Hudson insurance contract). Both sides agree further that the Hudson insurance contract governs, or is at least the starting point for determining, Hudson's duties to defend Gelman or to drop down in place of Mission. With respect to Hudson's duty to defend Gelman, the Hudson insurance contract states as follows:
Gelman does not challenge Hudson's contention that this clause allows Hudson to enter into defense of claims against Gelman, but does not obligate Hudson to do so. Gelman also has not offered any reasons why this court should not respect Hudson's choice not to defend Gelman in any of the cases now pending against Gelman. This court thus will not disturb Hudson's decision.
Gelman saves its arguments for Hudson's other alleged duty, that to drop down when excess umbrella liability insurers below it become insolvent. Hudson claims that it has no such duty under the contract, according to the following provision:
The contract reveals that Item 3 is $4 million. Under Item 4 the contract reads: "TOTAL UNDERLYING LIMIT OF LIABILITY: $20,000,000 EACH OCCURRENCE AND ANNUAL AGGREGATE WHERE APPLICABLE EXCESS OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE AND/OR SELF-INSURED RETENTION." Item 5 sets forth a schedule of underlying insurance, which references the schedule of underlying insurance contained in the Mission policy and the Mission policy's $20 million limit of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carey Transp., Inc.
...its option" as conferring discretion on the insurer, but ruling in favor of the insured on other grounds); Hudson Ins. Co. v. Gelman Sciences, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 25, 26 (N.D.Ill.1989) (where policy stated that "Hudson, at its option but not being required to, shall have the right and be give......
-
Canal Ins. Co. v. Montello, Inc.
...Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gerber Prods. Co., 702 F.Supp. 109, 112 (D. Md. 1988) (Maryland law) (same); Hudson Ins. Co. v. Gelman Sciences Inc., 706 F.Supp. 25, 26-27 (N.D. Ill. 1989)(Illinois law), aff'd 921 F.2d 92 (7th Cir. 1990) (same); Alabama Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Kinder-Care, 551 So.2d 286,......
-
Revco DS, Inc. v. Government Employees Ins. Co.
...to pay the full amount of their respective ultimate net loss ..." refers to a sum certain. See, e.g., Hudson Ins. Co. v. Gelman Sciences Inc., 706 F.Supp. 25, 26-27 (N.D.Ill.1989), aff'd, 921 F.2d 92 (1990) (court finding that language to the effect that excess insurer is not liable "until ......
-
Playtex FP, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co.
...1786, 286 Cal.Rptr. 507 (1991); Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gerber Products Co., D.Md., 702 F.Supp. 109 (1988); Hudson Ins. Co. v. Gelman Sciences Inc., N.D.Ill., 706 F.Supp. 25 (1989), aff'd, 7th Cir., 921 F.2d 92 (1990); Mission National Ins. Co. v. Duke Transportation Co., Inc., 5th Cir., 792 ......