U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., s. 70029

Citation161 Ill.Dec. 280,578 N.E.2d 926,144 Ill.2d 64
Decision Date20 May 1991
Docket NumberNos. 70029,70030,70032 and 70036,s. 70029
Parties, 161 Ill.Dec. 280, 59 USLW 2735 UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. WILKIN INSULATION COMPANY et al., Appellees (Commercial Union Insurance Company et al., Intervenors-Appellants).
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

Page 926

578 N.E.2d 926
144 Ill.2d 64, 161 Ill.Dec. 280, 59
USLW 2735
UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
WILKIN INSULATION COMPANY et al., Appellees (Commercial
Union Insurance Company et al., Intervenors-Appellants).
Nos. 70029, 70030, 70032 and 70036.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
May 20, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1991.

Page 928

[161 Ill.Dec. 282] Mary Kay McCalla, Hopkins & Sutter, Chicago, for Truck Ins. exchange.

[144 Ill.2d 68] James K. Horstman, Williams & Montgomery, Ltd., Chicago, for Commercial Union Ins.

[144 Ill.2d 67] Robert L. Kiesler, Kiesler & Berman, Chicago, for United States fidelity.

[144 Ill.2d 68] Marion B. Adler, Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Mr. Craig S. Mielke, Murphy, Hupp, Foote, Mielke & Kinnally, Aurora, for Wilkin Insulation Co.

Rivkin Radler Dunne, Mr. Steven R. Merican, Rivkin, Radler, Dunne & Bayh, Chicago, for Aetna Casualty & Surety.

D. Kendall Griffith, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, for Argonaut Ins. Co., and Argonaut Midwest Ins. Co.

Don E. Glickman, Rudnick & Wolfe, Chicago, Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., for Insurance Environmental.

Richard L. Sandler, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Wilson M. Brown, III, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for amicus American Motorists Ins., American Manufacturers Mutual, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Com.

[144 Ill.2d 69] Roland W. Burris, Atty. Gen., Springfield, for amicus Neil F. Hartigan.

Robert A. Creamer, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, for amicus W.R. Grace & Co., Armstrong World Industries, Borg-Warner Corp., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

[144 Ill.2d 68] Matthew J. Gehringer, Pope & John, Ltd., Chicago, for Zurich Ins. Co.

[144 Ill.2d 69] Justice BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court:

We are called upon to interpret certain provisions of comprehensive general liability insurance policies dealing with the duty of insurance companies to defend their insureds. This litigation originates as a result of underlying lawsuits instituted by school districts and public building owners against a multitude of defendants that collectively make up the "asbestos industry." The defendant herein, Wilkin Insulation Company (Wilkin), is alleged to be a part, although relatively insignificant, of the "asbestos industry." The underlying lawsuits seek reimbursement of costs incurred in asbestos abatement procedures from Wilkin and its codefendants. The events giving rise to the underlying litigation coincide with the periods of coverage of one or more of the comprehensive general liability insurance policies issued by plaintiff insurance companies to Wilkin.

Wilkin promptly notified its insurers of these asbestos-related cases and asked plaintiffs to defend it and to pay the resulting damages, if any, within the policy limits. Plaintiff United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G) refused to defend Wilkin and denied all coverage. The other plaintiffs, Commercial Union Insurance Company and Employers Fire Insurance Company (collectively, Commercial Union), Argonaut Insurance Company [144 Ill.2d 70] and Argonaut Midwest Insurance Company (collectively, Argonaut), Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna) and Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich), undertook Wilkin's defense under a reservation of rights.

USF & G instituted the instant declaratory judgment action, in the circuit court of Cook County, against Wilkin Insulation Company, Wilkin Properties, Inc., and Architectural

Page 929

[161 Ill.Dec. 283] Sales, Inc., the named insureds under its comprehensive general liability policy (collectively, Wilkin). USF & G sought a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Wilkin in the underlying lawsuits. Thereafter, Commercial Union, Argonaut, Aetna and Zurich intervened in this action as party plaintiffs, seeking the same declarations with regard to their duties to defend and indemnify Wilkin.

During consecutive policy terms between 1964 and 1985, Wilkin was insured under comprehensive general liability insurance policies issued at varying times by plaintiffs. Under the terms of these policies, each plaintiff agreed to defend and provide coverage for Wilkin in any action seeking damages on account of "property damage" caused by an "occurrence."

Wilkin is a small, family-run operation, whose business is the installation of insulation products in buildings under construction. From 1958 to 1970, a small percentage of Wilkin's business was the contract installation of spray-on fireproofing products which contained asbestos. Wilkin would act as a sub-contractor, applying the fireproofing products in accordance with the specifications and requirements of the general contractors, architects and engineers of various construction projects located in Indiana and Illinois.

Until roughly the mid-1970s, the use of asbestos-containing material for fireproofing and soundproofing was an accepted, and often required, specification in building construction. In the last decade, however, the well-recognized[144 Ill.2d 71] utility of these products has been overshadowed by the potential health hazard to human beings exposed to asbestos fibers. Concern over the effects of exposure to asbestos fibers has resulted in a maze of Federal and State regulations requiring local educational facilities and other public building owners to identify the presence of asbestos in their buildings and take corrective measures to contain or remove the asbestos products from their buildings. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (1988); 40 C.F.R. § 763 (1990); Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, par. 1401 et seq.

These regulations have resulted in mass litigation brought by these building owners against the whole "asbestos industry" to recover the costs associated with the inspection, removal from and/or replacement of asbestos in their buildings. Wilkin has found itself a named defendant in this asbestos-related litigation brought against an enormous defendant class, made up of the entire chain of miners, manufacturers, distributors, sellers, architects, engineers, contractors and installers of asbestos-containing products. The instant action involves nine of these asbestos-related lawsuits, brought by various building owners against over 60 named defendants, including Wilkin.

In the case at bar, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issues of their duty to defend and indemnify Wilkin in the underlying lawsuits. Wilkin responded with its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
486 cases
  • Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Vonachen Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • October 19, 2021
  • Blaine Const. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • April 12, 1999
    ... ... company liable for the cost of replacing ceiling insulation ruined by water that had condensed within the insulation ... occurred--and our de novo review of the record leaves us unpersuaded that the lawyer's reflexive remark was intended ... which surrounds the earth ... " United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 144 Ill.2d 64, 161 ... ...
  • Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1996
    ... ... Morris, Polich & Purdy, Los Angeles, for Appellant Fidelity & Casualty Ins. of New York ...         Jeffrey ... by the Supreme Court, and the matter was remanded to us for reconsideration in light of Montrose Chemical Corp. v ... Cork Covering, a low temperature insulation. That product had a paper backing and in 1956, after an ... (See U.S Fid. & Guar. Co. v. American Employers' Insurance Co. (1984) 159 ... Cir.1990) 896 F.2d 865, 875; USF & G v. Wilkin Insulation Co. (1991) 144 Ill.2d 64, 161 Ill.Dec. 280, ... ...
  • North River Ins. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ... ... which was found to be ambiguous in United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Wilkin Insulation Co., 144 Ill.2d 64, 161 ... As a result, the coverage issue is not before us. Nevertheless, the extent to which parol evidence may be, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT