Zurich Ins. Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1986
• Docket Number: 85-0129,Nos. 85-0112,85-0131,s. 85-0112
• Citation: 98 Ill.Dec. 508,144 Ill.App.3d 943,494 N.E.2d 630
• Parties: , 98 Ill.Dec. 508 ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, Intervening Plaintiff, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Federal Insurance Company, Commercial Union Insurance Company, and Globe Indemnity Company, and American Home Assurance Company, First State Insurance Company, and American Centennial Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 630

494 N.E.2d 630

144 Ill.App.3d 943, 98 Ill.Dec. 508

ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee and Northbrook Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, Intervening Plaintiff, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee and Federal Insurance Company, Commercial Union Insurance Company, and Globe Indemnity Company, and American Home Assurance Company, First State Insurance Company, and American Centennial Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 85-0112, 85-0129, 85-0131.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, First Division.

May 27, 1986.

Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., of counsel: Robert Marc Chemers, Michael J. Merlo, Mark C. Amador, Chicago, for defendant-appellant American Home Assur. Co.

Robert D. Kolar & Associates, Ltd., of counsel: John R. Fanone, Robert D. Kolar, Chicago, for defendant-appellant American Centennial Ins. Co.

Rooks, Pitts, & Poust, of counsel: Terrence E. Kiwala, Chicago, and Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant First State Ins. Co.

Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee Raymark Industries, Inc., Peterson, Ross, Schloerb & Seidel of counsel.

Michael M. Lane, Richard R. Ryan, Chicago, and White & Case of New York City, for plaintiff-appellee Federal Ins. Co.

Keck, Mahin & Cate and Thaddeus S. Snell, Chicago, for amicus curiae U.S. Gypsum Co.

Presiding Justice BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

In these three consolidated interlocutory appeals, three excess insurers of Raymark Industries, Inc. challenge the trial court's decision to join them as necessary parties in a declaratory judgment action. Review has been granted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (87 Ill.2d R. 308.)

Raymark Industries, Inc., formerly Rabestos-Manhatten, Inc., has been named as a defendant in thousands of lawsuits brought by individuals alleging they sustained injuries because they were exposed to asbestos-containing products that it manufactured. Several hundred lawsuits continue to be filed against it each month. Since the 1940's, Raymark has been insured under successive policies of comprehensive general liability insurance issued by various primary insurers. For many years, Raymark has also carried several layers of excess insurance to cover it for losses above the limits of its primary policies.

In 1978, one of Raymark's primary insurers, Zurich Insurance Company (Zurich), filed a declaratory judgment action in the circuit court of Cook County against Raymark and other primary insurers of Raymark. Zurich provided primary coverage for Raymark since October 15, 1969. Specifically, Zurich's complaint sought a declaration concerning the rights and obligations of the various insurers to provide coverage and defense for asbestos-related claims brought against Raymark. Early in the litigation one of Raymark's excess carriers, Northbrook Excess Surplus Insurance Company (Northbrook), sought successfully to intervene in the case.

After conducting evidentiary hearings in May and June of 1983, the trial court determined rules of coverage under the various primary policies, but did not provide for the allocation of the indemnity and defense responsibilities among the insurers whose policies were adjudged to be responsive to the underlying cases. The litigants made several post-trial motions which were ultimately disposed of by a final and appealable order. The rulings by the trial court were appealed to this court. Zurich Insurance Company v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986) 145 Ill.App.3d 175, 98 Ill.Dec. 512, 494 N.E.2d 634.

Prior to the court's entry of its final order, Zurich informed Raymark that it had reached the $12 million aggregate limits of its policies, and stated in open court on October 31, 1983, that it had exhausted it limits and no longer was obligated to defend Raymark. Consequently, on November 16, 1983, Raymark filed a motion for interim funding of indemnity and defense expenses, asserting Zurich's exhaustion of its limits as a predicate for such funding. Raymark alleged that Zurich was refusing to make any further payments and that Raymark was not financially capable of incurring these expenses itself.

Raymark's motion was granted by the trial court. Specifically, the interim funding order created a trust fund into which the primary carriers other than Zurich contributed monthly sums to fund the claims brought against Raymark. In approving the funding order, the trial court indicated that when carriers providing excess coverage for these claims could be brought before it, the court would entertain a motion to recompute contributions to the trust fund.

At the time the November funding order was entered, Northbrook was the only first level excess insurer who was a party to the case. Consequently, on November 18, 1983, defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Federal"), one of Raymark's primary insurers, moved pursuant to section 2-405 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-405) to join as necessary parties three of Raymark's other first-layer excess carriers, American Home Assurance Company ("American Home"), First State Insurance Company ("First State") and American Centennial Insurance Company ("American Centennial"). Federal alleged that these three excess carriers were necessary for a complete determination of the issues involved in the case.

On November 22, 1983, the trial court granted the joinder motion and ordered that Zurich's complaint be amended to add as defendants the three excess insurers.

In March, 1984, American Home filed a motion to dismiss, American Centennial filed a motion for summary judgment and First State moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, to dismiss the complaint. The excess insurers asserted in their motions that they were not necessary parties and had been misjoined. In October, 1984, during the pendency of the motions, the trial court ordered that the interim funding order be amended to require participation by the three excess insurers in question. On December 27, 1984, the trial court denied each of the motions of the excess insurers, but certified certain questions for review pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (87 Ill.2d R. 308.) The certified questions seek a determination as to whether each of the three excess carriers were necessary parties; whether an actual case or controversy existed at the time of joinder which involved each of the excess carriers; and whether the motions for summary judgment and/or to dismiss were properly granted. We granted leave to appeal and consolidated each of the three interlocutory appeals for our review.

At the outset, we note that the excess insurers contend it was improper for Federal to bring the joinder motion because Federal was a defendant, and not a plaintiff, in the underlying declaratory judgment action. While Federal fails to address this point in its brief, it is clearly irrelevant who brought the motion. Joinder of necessary parties is jurisdictional (People ex rel. Carson v. Mateyka (1978), 57 Ill.App.3d 991, 15 Ill.Dec. 125, 373 N.E.2d 471), and therefore the issue may be raised by any of the parties or by the trial or reviewing courts sua sponte. (Moore v. McDaniel (1977), 48 Ill.App.3d 152, 5 Ill.Dec. 911, 362 N.E.2d 382.)

Turning to the merits of this case, Section 2-405 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides for the joinder as a defendant of any person "whom it is necessary to make a party for the complete determination or settlement of any question involved" in the controversy. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-405(a).) It is not necessary that each defendant be interested as to all the relief prayed for. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-405(b).) Illinois courts have found that a "necessary" party under Section 2-405 is one who has a legal or beneficial interest in...