DeMeester's Flower Shop & Greenhouse, Inc. v. Florists' Mutual Insurance Co., 2017 IL App (2d) 161001

DeMeester’s operated a flower/lawn-care business; an employee accidentally mixed glyphosate instead of a selective herbicide and damaged 26 customers’ lawns.
DeMeester incurred substantial costs to restore those lawns.
DeMeester had a commercial insurance policy from Florists with a limited pesticide/herbicide-applicator endorsement.
Florists denied coverage, citing property-damage exclusions in the policy that bar coverage for damage to the particular part of property on which the insured was performing operations or that must be restored because the insured’s work was improperly performed.
DeMeester sued (declaratory relief on coverage under the Pesticide Act, vicarious liability, and negligent misrepresentation). The trial court dismissed all counts under section 2-615, holding the policy exclusions barred coverage and the Pesticide Act did not mandate coverage for the negligent applicator.
DeMeester appealed only the coverage (count I) claim; the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the policy’s property-damage exclusions are overridden by the Illinois Pesticide Act’s mandatory financial-responsibility requirement	The Pesticide Act requires licensed applicators to maintain specified liability insurance, which DeMeester says reflects public policy mandating coverage for those required to buy it (i.e., DeMeester)	The policy exclusions unambiguously bar coverage for property damage caused by the insured’s own work; the Act protects persons who "suffer" injury or property damage, not the party that caused the damage	The Act does not make DeMeester an intended beneficiary; the plain language covers persons who suffer injury or damage, not the negligent applicator; policy exclusions apply and bar coverage
Whether the Pesticide Act supersedes the policy when the insured caused the damage	DeMeester: statutory requirement implies coverage for insured who must show financial responsibility	Florists: statute aims to protect aggrieved third parties (landowners), not to require indemnification of negligent businesses	Court: statute’s plain language shows it protects injured persons; it does not create a right for the negligent applicator to coverage regardless of policy terms

Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296 (2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency under section 2-615)
Vernon v. Schuster, 179 Ill. 2d 338 (1997) (fact-pleading requirement; allegations must include facts, not conclusions)
Iseberg v. Gross, 227 Ill. 2d 78 (2007) (2-615 dismissal improper unless no set of facts could entitle plaintiff to relief)
Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (2004) (de novo review of dismissals)
Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill. 2d 384 (1993) (insurance-policy interpretation aims to effect parties’ intent)
Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc., 223 Ill. 2d 352 (2006) (policy construed as whole; unambiguous terms enforced)
Paszkowski v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 213 Ill. 2d 1 (2004) (cardinal rule: ascertain legislative intent from statute’s plain language)
Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (2004) (statutory language is primary indicator of legislative intent)
People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264 (2003) (statutory language given plain, ordinary meaning)
Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, Inc., 197 Ill. 2 d 1 (2001) (apply statute as written when unambiguous)
Great American Insurance Co. v. Brad Movers, Inc., 65 Ill. App. 3d 357 (1978) (distinguishing statutory beneficiaries from contracting parties)