Illinois Supreme Court Civil Issues Pending: Insurance
[UPDATED THROUGH May 14, 2012]
Country Preferred Insurance Co. v. Whitehead
Supreme Court Number: 113365
Appellate Court: Third District
Appellate Court Case Number: 3-11-0096
Issue Presented: Is the provision of an Illinois automobile insurance policy imposing a two-year statute of limitations on uninsured motorists claims invalid as against public policy with respect to an accident which occurred in Wisconsin, where the statute of limitations for uninsured motorist claims is three years?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: Defendant was in an automobile accident in Wisconsin with an uninsured motorist. As required by Illinois law, defendant's policy provided that the insured could make a written demand for arbitration of any claim involving an uninsured motorist, and any such suit was barred two years after the accident. Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, alleging that her uninsured motorist claim was barred on the grounds that she failed to make a written demand for arbitration within two years. The trial court denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration, but the Appellate Court reversed. The public policy of Illinois is to place the injured party in an uninsured motorist accident in substantially the same position he would have occupied if the uninsured driver had been insured. Hoglund v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 148 Ill.2d 272, 279 (1992). Thus, the question was whether public policy was violated when an insurance policy limited coverage to two years with respect to an accident which occurred in a state where the statute of limitations was three years. The Appellate Court held that the policy provision violated public policy because it altered the rule which would have applied if the uninsured motorist involved in the accident had been insured. Justice McDade dissented, arguing that the laws of another state could not amend or otherwise affect Illinois public policy.
Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Caremark RX, Inc.
Supreme Court Case Number: 104906
Appellate Court: First District, Division 2
Appellate Court Case Number: 1-06-1221
Issues Presented: (1) Where an insurer pays its insured's defense costs solely in order to comply with a trial court order, may the insurer seek reimbursement of those payments when the order finding a duty to defend is reversed? (2) Did the Circuit Court abuse its discretion by permitting the insurer to amend its complaint for declaratory judgment after the order on duty to defend is reversed to state a claim for unjust enrichment?
Appellate Court Opinion Summary: The insurer's insured was sued for allegedly conspiring to obtain undisclosed discounts, rebates and kickbacks for favoring certain drugs. Insurer denied a defense and filed a declaratory judgment action. The Circuit Court granted the insured's motion for summary judgment, ordered insurer to provide a defense, and refused to stay enforcement of its order pending review. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that insurer had no duty to defend. On remand, insurer filed a motion for restitution, seeking to recover defense costs expended between entry of the trial court's order and reversal. The Circuit Court held that the insurer's declaratory judgment action was the "functional equivalent" of a defense on reservation of rights, and the insurer was therefore barred from recovering defense costs under General Agents Ins. Co. of Am. v. Midwest Sporting Goods Co., 215 Ill.2d 146 (2005). The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of the motion for restitution, finding that although the motion was not governed by General Agents, insurer had not stated any cause of action which could support a remedy of restitution. However, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court's refusal to permit the insurer to amend to state a claim for unjust enrichment.
Citations to Opinion: 373 Ill.App.3d 895, 311 Ill.Dec. 897, 869 N.E.2d 910
