The first part of this article was posted here on Monday, July 13, 2015. This installment continues and completes this article.
After comparing the allegations of the underlying complaint against the insured, with the provisions of the insurance policy at issue as required by Illinois law as in most jurisdictions, the trial court decided that there was no duty to defend in this matter. As noted, the Illinois First District Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coleman Law Firm, ¶ 24, 2014 Ill. App. (1st) 133518-U, ¶ 24, 2014 WL 7446203, at *5 (Ill. 1st DCA December 29, 2014)(stated “UNPUBLISHED OPINION”). “Comparing the allegations of the FDIC complaint in the underlying action to the provisions of the insurance policy at hand, the factual allegations in the underlying complaint did not allege acts of negligence, but rather acts which could only be classified as intentional and, thus, excluded from policy coverage.” Illinois State Bar Ass’n Mut. Ins. Co. v. Coleman Law Firm, ¶ 36, 2014 Ill. App. (1st) 133518-U, ¶ 36, 2014 WL 7446203, at *9 (Ill. 1st DCA December 29, 2014). [Emphasis added.]
As can readily be seen from the underscored words in this quoted holding, the Illinois appellate court compared the factual allegations, not simply the claims alleged in the underlying complaint, to the provisions of the insurance policy in order to determine whether the policy provided a duty to defend in this case.
Reprinted with the permission of Thomson Reuters and the author from the manuscript of the author's 2015 Supplement chapters, and particularly Section 3:51, in “Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith, 3d” ©2015 by Thomson Reuters.