Last year in one of my blogposts, I wrote about Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,1 and the issue whether appraisal is appropriate to resolve a dispute over the cost of repairing physically undamaged siding of townhome buildings to remedy a mismatch with repaired damaged siding. There, a federal district court in Illinois denied the Association’s motion to compel appraisal on the “matching” issue, reasoning it was a question of coverage, not loss amount, and thus inappropriate for appraisal. This coverage issue was subsequently resolved in favor of the Association, the district court concluding that Philadelphia must replace or pay to replace the siding on all four of the townhome buildings’ elevations if no siding is available that matches the undamaged siding on the north and east elevations, as claimed by the Association.2
Continue Reading

Merlin Law Group attorneys Mike Duffy, Christina Phillips, & Ed Eshoo

Mike Duffy, Ed Eshoo, and Christina Phillips head up Merlin Law Group’s Chicago office. As far as I am concerned, they are the best insurance lawyers in Chicago, and we are very lucky to have them hitching their stars to the Merlin Law Group wagon.
Continue Reading

An Illinois Public Insurance Adjuster recently contacted me regarding an insurer’s denial of a smoke damage claim. The facts were as follows. While a condominium unit owner was using the fireplace in the unit (“unit 1”), smoke began to fill up in the condominium unit above (“unit 2”). The condominium association made a claim to its property insurer for the smoke damage to unit 2. Concluding that the fireplace flu in unit 1 was improperly installed, the insurer denied the association’s claim, asserting exclusions for damage caused by or resulting from (1) faulty workmanship (“the faulty workmanship exclusion”) and (2) the discharge or release of pollutants (“the pollution exclusion”).
Continue Reading

Illinois’ solution to an insurance company’s delay, deny and defend tactics is section 155 of the Illinois Insurance Code, which provides an extra-contractual remedy to policyholders whose insurer’s refusal to recognize liability and pay a claim under a policy is vexatious and unreasonable.1 Section 155 of the Code is intended to aid the insured and to discourage insurers from profiting by their superior financial positions while delaying in the payment of contractual obligations.2
Continue Reading

The Illinois Supreme Court recently overturned the Court of Appeals’ decision in American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 82 N.E. 3d 533, 2017 IL App (1st) 161071 (Ill. App. 2017). As discussed in my post on June 14, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court had concluded that the insured’s claim against their agent for negligent procurement of insurance did not arise until the insured knew or reasonable should have known of the injury, i.e., at the moment when the insurer denied coverage.
Continue Reading

Last year in one of my blogposts, I wrote about Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, and the issue whether appraisal is appropriate to resolve a dispute over the cost of repairing physically undamaged siding of townhome buildings to remedy a mismatch with repaired damaged siding. There, a federal district court in Illinois denied the Association’s motion to compel appraisal on the “matching” issue, reasoning it was a question of coverage, not loss amount, and inappropriate for appraisal.1
Continue Reading

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion this week in Streit v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company,1 is a major victory for policyholders in Illinois. There, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court judgment entered in favor of my clients, Wesley and Barbara Streit, arising out of Metropolitan’s failure to cover a fire loss to their residence in Illinois. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling establishes that an insurance policy exclusion which precludes innocent co-insureds from recovering violates the minimum level of protection afforded by the Illinois Standard Fire Policy.
Continue Reading

Section 13-214.4 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ll causes of action brought by any person or entity under any statute or any legal or equitable theory against an insurance producer1 . . . concerning the sale, placement, procurement, renewal, cancellation of, or failure to procure any policy of insurance shall be brought within 2 years of the date the cause of action accrues.”2 Section 2–2201(d) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure anticipates negligence actions against insurance producers: “[w]hile limiting the scope of liability of an insurance producer, . . . the provisions of this [s]ection do not limit or release an insurance producer . . . from liability for negligence concerning the sale, placement, procurement, renewal, binding, cancellation of, or failure to procure any policy of insurance.”3 Section 2–2201(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure places a duty on insurance producers, including brokers and agents, to act with ordinary care in procuring insurance for insureds.4
Continue Reading