Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. A Tec Ambulance, Inc., 1:15-cv-11086

While EMTs Rhody and Bachta moved patient Glen Lenzi on a stretcher to an A‑Tec ambulance, Glen fell, hit his head, later suffered a brain hemorrhage, and died.
Glen’s widow, Donna Lenzi, sued A‑Tec, Rhody, and Bachta alleging the fall and subsequent failures to examine/treat and to notify dialysis staff caused Glen’s death.
A‑Tec’s insurer, Homeland, denied coverage and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify under the Policy.
The Policy contains Exclusion (D)(5) barring coverage for bodily injury "arising out of" the ownership, use, or the loading/unloading of an Auto; Endorsement No. 9 broadens that exclusion to expressly include handling or placement of any individual into, onto, or from the Auto.
The parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; the court treated Donna’s fourth amended complaint as the operative pleading for the duty‑to‑defend analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Exclusion (D)(5) bar coverage for claims arising from Glen’s fall during ambulance loading?	Homeland: injuries "arise out of" loading/unloading and are excluded.	A‑Tec/Rhody/Bachta: some alleged post‑fall acts (failure to examine/notify) are independent medical wrongs that fall within coverage.	Held for Homeland: injuries are intertwined with the excluded loading event, so exclusion applies.
Is there any separate, "wholly independent" covered cause that would trigger duty to defend?	Homeland: no—all alleged harms flow from the fall during loading.	Defendants: post‑fall failures are separate proximate causes that could be covered.	Held for Homeland: alleged post‑fall conduct is not a separate compensable injury independent of the fall.
Is Homeland entitled to declaratory judgment of no duty to defend?	Homeland: yes, because exclusion removes potential coverage in the operative complaint.	Defendants: duty exists if any theory in complaint potentially falls within coverage.	Held for Homeland: no duty to defend because all pleaded theories are intertwined with excluded risk.
Is Homeland also entitled to declaratory judgment of no duty to indemnify?	Homeland: yes, duty to indemnify follows no duty to defend.	Defendants: indemnity would be required if independent covered injury proved.	Held for Homeland: no duty to indemnify (duty to defend broader; absent that, indemnity also denied).

Northbrook Property & Casualty Co. v. Transp. Joint Agreement, 741 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 2000) (coverage barred where alleged injuries are intertwined with an excluded source and not wholly independent)
Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 1452‑4 N. Milwaukee Ave., LLC, 562 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2009) (insurer’s duty to defend arises if complaint potentially alleges claims within policy coverage)
Netherlands Insurance Co. v. Phusion Projects, Inc., 737 F.3d 1174 (7th Cir. 2013) (federal court must follow state supreme court on insurance‑law questions)
Title Industries Assurance Co. v. First American Title Insurance Co., 853 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2017) (interpretation of insurance contracts is question of law; duty to defend is broader than duty to indemnify)
Westfield Insurance Co. v. Vandenberg, 796 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2015) (distinguishes dependent versus independent claims when assessing interplay of exclusions)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)