Sharp v. Trans Union L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-05-0719.,1-05-0719. |
| Citation | 845 N.E.2d 719 |
| Parties | Alec SHARP, Individually and as Representative of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Federal Insurance Company (UK), Ltd., Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A., GE Frankona Reinsurance Ltd., All Subscribing to Policy No. QA9900096, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TRANS UNION L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Christopher C. Dickinson, Kathy A. Karcher, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Christopher F. Stoll, Raymond H. Sheen, Heller Ehrman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Appellant.
David M. Holmes, Stefan R. Dandelles, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, Chicago, for Appellee.
MODIFIED UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING
Defendant, Trans Union LLC, appeals pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(b)(5) ) from a contempt order entered by the circuit court of Cook County after Trans Union failed to comply with an earlier order compelling it to produce certain documents requested by plaintiff, Alec Sharp, individually and as representative of certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London (the Underwriters). In that request, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 214 (166 Ill.2d R. 214), the Underwriters sought documents relevant to their determination of whether certain class action lawsuits filed against Trans Union would be excluded from coverage under Trans Union's $75 million professional liability insurance policy. Those documents included, inter alia, items reflecting or pertaining to Trans Union's general counsel's knowledge of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (West 2006)) (the FCRA) and of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and private litigation arising from alleged violations of the FCRA (collectively the pre-policy documents). Trans Union refused to turn the pre-policy documents over to the Underwriters, claiming they were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. The circuit court granted the Underwriters' motion to compel the production of the pre-policy documents and, when Trans Union refused to comply, held Trans Union in contempt of court.
On appeal, Trans Union contends that the circuit court erred in granting the Underwriters' motion to compel Trans Union to produce the pre-policy documents. Trans Union alternatively argues that even if production of the pre-policy documents was properly ordered, it should not occur at this time because it will prejudice Trans Union's defense in the underlying lawsuits. For the reasons that follow, we find that Trans Union bargained away any privilege against disclosure applicable to the pre-policy documents when it agreed to a manuscripted insurance policy, which defined coverage in terms of what Trans Union's general counsel knew about existing and potential errors and omissions lawsuits.
The record discloses the following facts relevant to the determination of this appeal. Trans Union is an international provider of consumer credit reporting services. As such, Trans Union collects and maintains a massive database of consumer credit information. In the 1990's, Trans Union was engaged in the business of selling prescreened lists of consumers to credit grantors for target marketing purposes.
On December 15, 1992, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Trans Union, alleging that Trans Union violated the FCRA by selling consumer reports in the form of prescreened lists to third parties for improper purposes. An administrative law judge ultimately ruled that Trans Union violated the FCRA by selling the lists. However, Trans Union elected to appeal the FTC's decision and continued to sell the target marketing information. At the time the present action was filed, Trans Union was still pursuing appeals of the FTC's decision. Trans Union did not stop selling consumer information from its databases until roughly 2002.
On August 31, 1998, Joshua Frey filed a complaint against Trans Union in Orange County, California, based on allegations similar to those in the FTC complaint. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that Trans Union "sells the individual consumer information it collects * * * to third-parties who do not have a permissible purpose for obtaining or receiving the information * * * under the FCRA."
During this time, Trans Union decided to procure professional liability insurance coverage. Denise Norgle, Trans Union's assistant general counsel at the time, explained in her deposition that she was involved in the discussions leading to the decision. However, the only factor that Norgle could recall in the decision was that Trans Union had been involved in contract negotiations with some "very large customers," who would have required Trans Union to obtain errors and omissions insurance. Norgle would not answer questions regarding whether Trans Union suspected that there would be future lawsuits based on the sale of consumer information to third parties without proper purposes under the FCRA. Norgle would also not answer questions about whether Trans Union believed that such future suits would be covered under a professional liability insurance policy.
Accordingly, on October 13, 1998, Trans Union submitted an application for professional liability insurance with its broker, Aon Risk Services, Inc. In that application, Trans Union indicated that there were "various consumer claims pending against it that have been brought for alleged violations of federal and state consumer reporting laws." However, the FTC and Frey lawsuits were not listed among the suits disclosed at that time.
Through Aon, negotiations to insure Trans Union began with the Alec Sharp Syndicate at Lloyd's of London. Andrew Syson, the Sharp Syndicate's commercial professional indemnity underwriter at the time, further explained this process in his deposition. Although Syson was not familiar with Trans Union's application, he explained generally that someone at the Sharp Syndicate would have reviewed the application and the claims history before underwriting the policy. Frequently, underwriters request more information on pending claims.
Terms of policies are then established by negotiation. The wording of the policy might begin with a more standard language, but would be altered during the negotiation process. Regarding the policy at issue in the case at bar, Syson identified a number of changes that were made to the language of the policy during the negotiation process. Among them, the language of exclusion (g) of the policy was changed from excluding:
"any Claim arising out of acts, errors, violations or omissions that took place prior to the effective date of this Insurance, if the Chief Financial Officer of the Named Assured on the effective date knew or could reasonably have foreseen that such acts, errors, violations or omissions might be expected to be the basis of a Claim" (emphasis added)
to excluding claims only if the chief financial officer on the effective date "knew that such acts, errors, violations or omissions might be expected to be the basis of a Claim." (Emphasis added.)
Stuart Essex, Aon's United Kingdom broker, also discussed the negotiation of the policy language in his deposition. Essex stated that he had never worked on an account that required so many changes to the policy language, observing that this was "one of the worst cases I have seen for required amendments." Essex also indicated that Aon was concerned they were "killing the policy with too many attempts to amend the policy language."
The process of negotiating Trans Union's policy took months, and Aon wanted the coverage in place by June 10, 1999. Accordingly, on April 9, 1999, Essex sent an e-mail to Mary Gander at Aon expressing his concerns that an agreement regarding the policy might not be reached. Essex also requested a "no known loss" letter, which would indicate that since Trans Union submitted its application, no further known claims had been filed. According to Syson, it was quite common for Lloyd's policies to be bound contingent upon an updated loss letter being received at a later date.
The Underwriters ultimately issued a $75 million claims made professional liability policy to Trans Union on June 16, 1999. Thereafter, on July 13, 1999, Trans Union submitted a letter disclosing the FTC litigation, the Frey suit, and two additional consumer suits which had been filed since its application was submitted. The first additional suit was filed by Marci Martinelli in California on January 28, 1999. The second additional suit was filed by Michael Rosen in California on February 11, 1999. Like the FTC litigation and the Frey suit, the Martinelli and Rosen suits were based on, inter alia, allegations that Trans Union improperly sold consumer information to third parties in violation of the FCRA.
When the Underwriters received notice of these claims, Essex wrote an e-mail to Mary Gander that "large eyebrows were raised." However, the Underwriters did not change their decision to insure Trans Union. Essex also noted that because the policy excluded claims made prior to the inception of the policy, these claims would not be covered.
At its inception on June 16, 1999, the policy included the following relevant provisions. The policy covered only those claims "first made against any Assured during the Period of Insurance." The policy also contained certain specific exclusions. Among them was exclusion (g), which excluded:
"any Claim arising out of acts, errors, violations or omissions that took place prior to the effective date of this Insurance, if the Chief Financial Officer of the Named Assured on the effective date knew that such acts, errors, violations or omissions might be expected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allianz Ins. Co. v. Guidant Corporation
...for insurance. Waste Management, 144 Ill.2d at 192, 161 Ill.Dec. 774, 579 N.E.2d 322; see also Sharp v. Trans Union L.L.C., 364 Ill.App.3d 64, 68, 300 Ill. Dec. 830, 845 N.E.2d 719 (2006) (applying Waste Management holding to lawsuits "currently pending"). In this case, although the parties......
-
LB Steel, LLC v. Carlo Steel Corp.
...and, if the language is unambiguous, the policy generally "will be applied as written." Sharp v. Trans Union LLC , 364 Ill. App. 3d 64, 71-72, 300 Ill.Dec. 830, 845 N.E.2d 719 (2006).¶ 54 Applying these principles in the present case, we observe that the Zurich policy, by its plain language......
-
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...clause in the instant case further distinguishes the situation here from that present in Sharp v. Trans Union L.L.C. , 364 Ill. App. 3d 64, 300 Ill.Dec. 830, 845 N.E.2d 719 (2006), a case that defendants rely on to expand the holding of Waste Management to encompass the present situation. I......
-
In re Turubchuk
...confined within its narrowest possible limits." Id. (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted); Sharp v. Trans Union L.L.C., 845 N.E.2d 719, 726 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) ("In the context of the relationship between insurer and insured, Illinois adheres to a strong policy of encouraging d......