First Chicago Insurance Company v. Molda
36 N.E.3d 400
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- On August 17, 2005 Michael Molda, a Metrolift employee, was involved in an auto collision while driving his mother's vehicle; Metrolift held an auto policy with First Chicago covering categories 7, 8 and 9 (category 9 = “nonowned autos”).
- Wilson sued Molda (later adding Metrolift); First Chicago sued for declaratory relief alleging late notice and that Molda was not an insured. Metrolift was later dismissed and the case proceeded to a bench trial.
- Metrolift’s treasurer (Harrison) notified Associated (Metrolift’s broker/subproducer for First Chicago) shortly after the accident and discussed handling it with the broker; First Chicago was not notified until March 2008 when it received notice of Wilson’s suit from Associated.
- Trial court held Molda was (a) an insured under the policy because his mother’s car qualified as a nonowned auto used in connection with Metrolift’s business, (b) Associated had apparent authority to receive notice on First Chicago’s behalf, and (c) notice was timely; First Chicago appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding (1) category 9 covers nonowned vehicles used in connection with the business, (2) apparent agency existed based on course of dealings and policy/declarations, and (3) notice (via Associated) was reasonable and not shown to have prejudiced First Chicago.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Molda was an insured under the First Chicago policy | Molda’s car was not a “covered auto” and he therefore was not an insured | Molda was driving a nonowned auto used in connection with Metrolift’s business and thus was an insured | Held: Molda was an insured; category 9 covers nonowned autos used in connection with the business (affirmed) |
| Whether Associated was First Chicago’s agent for notice | Associated was not First Chicago’s agent; notice to broker should not bind insurer | Course of dealings, declarations page listing Associated as agent, and First Chicago’s practice supported apparent authority | Held: Associated had apparent authority to accept notice for First Chicago (affirmed) |
| Whether notice of the accident was timely under the policy | Notice to First Chicago was 31 months late and unreasonable; failure to forward notice defeats coverage | Metrolift notified Associated promptly; given broker’s apparent authority and facts, notice was reasonable | Held: Notice via Associated was timely/reasonable; First Chicago did not show prejudice or fraud (affirmed) |
| Whether insurer must show prejudice from late notice | First Chicago argued policyholder cannot recover regardless of prejudice | Defendants argued reasonableness and lack of prejudice should control; First Chicago had not seriously investigated | Held: Prejudice is a factor in assessing reasonableness; here lack of demonstrated prejudice supports coverage (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446 (ill.) (insurance-contract construction; give effect to parties’ intent and construe policy liberally for insured)
- Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (ill.) (trial court as factfinder assesses witness credibility and weight)
- State Sec. Ins. Co. v. Burgos, 145 Ill. 2d 423 (ill.) (apparent authority of broker to insurer; principal estopped by course of dealings)
- Pekin Ins. Co. v. Benson, 306 Ill. App. 3d 367 (1st Dist.) (nonowned-auto definition construed to include vehicles owned by employees/others not in household when used in connection with business)
- Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Livorsi Marine, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 303 (ill.) (notice provisions require notification within a reasonable time; reasonableness is fact-specific)
- Kinney v. Continental Assurance Co., 42 Ill. App. 3d 263 (1st Dist.) (distinguishable on scope-of-employment and vicarious liability principles)
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 879 (1st Dist.) (interpretation of "in connection with" construed against insurer)
- Farmers Auto. Ins'n Ass'n v. Gitelson, 344 Ill. App. 3d 888 (1st Dist.) (judgment will not be reversed unless against manifest weight of evidence)
