Bunjo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
2025 IL App (1st) 241010-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Plaintiff, Seviiri Bunjo, owned a residential rental property insured by State Farm under a homeowners policy.
- In April 2019, the City of Chicago found significant code violations at the property, obtained a court order vacating the premises, and prohibited its use or rental until violations were abated.
- Before abatement was complete, the property was vandalized and burglarized on May 31, 2019, leading Bunjo to file a claim with State Farm.
- State Farm initially denied, then paid ~$36,000 for covered damages; Bunjo sought over $122,000, including higher repair costs and lost rental income.
- Bunjo sued for declaratory relief, claiming underpayment; the trial court granted summary judgment in State Farm's favor, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to damages or coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Claim Adjustment | State Farm underpaid; repairs/renovation cost much more and other estimates supported this. | Bunjo provided no evidence directly refuting State Farm's estimate. | For State Farm—no evidence supporting higher damages. |
| Coverage for Lost Rents/Use | Entitled to lost rental income and living expenses, as property wasn't vacant at the loss time. | Losses weren’t covered because property was already uninhabitable by court order. | For State Farm—policy excludes losses from ordinance enforcement. |
| Violation of Appraisal Provision | Denied opportunity for appraisal/arbitration under policy. | Issue forfeited—never properly argued below. | For State Farm—issue not preserved for appeal. |
| Procedural Deficiencies on Appeal | Omission in appendix not fatal to appeal. | Appeal should be dismissed for inadequate record. | Court exercised discretion to reach the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zdeb v. Allstate Insurance Co., 404 Ill. App. 3d 113 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (summary judgment and insurance policy interpretation standards)
- Pekin Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 237 Ill. 2d 446 (Ill. 2010) (determining insurer’s duty when factual allegations fall within policy coverage)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (Ill. 2005) (application of contract interpretation to insurance policies)
- Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 141 (Ill. 2004) (plain meaning and ambiguity rules in policy interpretation)
- Greenwich Insurance Co. v. RPS Products, Inc., 379 Ill. App. 3d 78 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (insurer's duty to defend—factual allegations and coverage)
- People v. Clay, 167 Ill. App. 3d 628 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (requirement for proper citations and developed legal arguments on appeal)
- Willett v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 366 Ill. App. 3d 360 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (standards for granting summary judgment)