NORTHBROOK PROP. AND CASUALTY CO. v. Transportation Joint Agreement
| Decision Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 88900.,88900. |
| Citation | 194 Ill.2d 96,741 N.E.2d 253,251 Ill.Dec. 659 |
| Parties | NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. TRANSPORTATION JOINT AGREEMENT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (Stephen R. Swofford, Fritz K. Huszagh and Christine L. Olson, of counsel), for appellant.
Wayne F. Plaza, Karen W. Howard and Nicole A. Roth, of Rooks, Pitts & Poust, Chicago, for appellees Transportation Joint Agreement et al.
Steven H. Kuh, Chicago (Russell N. Brown, of Lustig & Brown, LLP, Buffalo, New York, of counsel), for appellee Westchester Fire Insurance Co. Justice HEIPLE delivered the opinion of the court:
In this action for declaratory judgment, plaintiff Northbrook Property and Casualty Company (Northbrook) appeals the appellate court's determination that Northbrook has a duty to defend the Transportation Joint Agreement of School Districts 47 and 155 (school districts) in numerous lawsuits arising from the collision of a train with a school bus. We reverse.
On October 25, 1995, a METRA train collided with a school bus operated jointly by the school districts. Several students were killed and many others were injured, resulting in numerous lawsuits against the school districts.
At the time of the accident, one of the insurance policies which the school districts had in force was a commercial general liability policy issued by Northbrook. That policy states:
"We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of `bodily injury' or `property damage' to which this insurance applies."
The policy also states that the following losses are not covered:
Northbrook filed this action in the circuit court of McHenry County seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend the school districts against the students' lawsuits because the injuries arose out of the use or operation of a bus. The trial court granted summary judgment for Northbrook. The appellate court reversed, holding that the students' lawsuits against the school districts adequately alleged that the injuries could have arisen from causes other than use or operation of the bus, such as failure of the school districts to adequately plan and inspect bus routes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WEST BEND MUT. INS. v. Mulligan Masonry Co.
...complaints allege facts within or potentially within the policy's coverage. Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. Transportation Joint Agreement, 194 Ill.2d 96, 98, 251 Ill.Dec. 659, 741 N.E.2d 253 (2000). An insurer may not justifiably refuse to defend an action against its insured unless ......
-
American Economy Ins. v. Holabird and Root
...its insured even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent." Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. Transportation Joint Agreement, 194 Ill.2d 96, 98, 251 Ill.Dec. 659, 741 N.E.2d 253 (2000). "The insurer's duty to defend does not depend upon a sufficient suggestion of liabilit......
-
Cmk Development v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 1-08-1155.
...duty to defend. Swiderski, 223 Ill.2d at 363, 307 Ill.Dec. 653, 860 N.E.2d 307; Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. Transportation Joint Agreement, 194 Ill.2d 96, 98, 251 Ill.Dec. 659, 741 N.E.2d 253 (2000); Dare, 357 Ill.App.3d at 961, 294 Ill.Dec. 258, 830 N.E.2d 670. Thus, even though ......
-
PEKIN Ins. Co. v. PULTE HOME Corp.
...which bring the case within, or potentially within, the policy's coverage.” Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. Transportation Joint Agreement, 194 Ill.2d 96, 98, 251 Ill.Dec. 659, 741 N.E.2d 253 (2000). “[A]ny doubt with regard to such duty is to be resolved in favor of the insured.” Uni......