Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC
16 N.E.3d 781
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Pekin Insurance seeks a declaration that Rada is not an additional insured under the Pekin policy for Chicago Masonry in a related personal-injury action against Sutton.
- Chicago Masonry is insured by Pekin and had an AI endorsement listing Rada via contracts.
- Rada contracted Heartland as GC; Heartland later reassigned its subcontract interests, potentially affecting AI status.
- Lloyd’s sought defense duty for Rada in Sutton and tendered its defense; Pekin rejected Lloyd’s tender.
- Pekin obtained a default judgment against Rada; Lloyd’s later sought to vacate the judgment and intervene, arguing it was a necessary party.
- Trial court vacated the default judgment under section 2-1401, concluding Lloyd’s was a necessary party and allowing intervention; Pekin appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Lloyd’s a necessary party to the Pekin action? | Pekin argues Lloyd’s not required; no joinder violation here. | Lloyd’s was necessary to protect its interests and ensure complete relief. | Yes; Lloyd’s was necessary to correct a void judgment. |
| Did the default judgment against Rada render the Lloyd’s action void for lack of joinder? | Default judgment stood; Lloyd’s cannot relitigate. | Void judgment tainted Lloyd’s rights and required vacatur. | Void judgment; vacatur affirmed. |
| Was the section 2-1401 petition properly granted to vacate the void judgment and allow intervention? | No meritorious defense or due diligence shown. | Void order allows attack at any time; intervention necessary to protect Lloyd’s interests. | Granted; petition granted and intervention allowed. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing Lloyd’s to intervene post-judgment? | Intervention after judgment is generally disfavored. | Intervention appropriate to protect existing rights and ensure complete relief. | No abuse of discretion; intervention proper under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zurich Insurance Co. v. Baxter International, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 30 (1995) (necessary-party principles; complete relief in declaratory actions)
- Feen v. Ray, 109 Ill. 2d 339 (1985) (void orders when due process or jurisdiction is lacking)
- Sarkissian v. Chicago Board of Education, 201 Ill. 2d 95 (2002) (section 2-1401 standards for void judgments)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Hall-Pilate, 2011 IL App (1st) 102632 (2011) (de novo review of section 2-1401 void-judgment petitions)
- Ramsey Emergency Services, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 367 Ill. App. 3d 351 (2006) (intervention standards; discretionary decision review)
- People ex rel. Scott v. Illinois Protestant Children’s Home, Inc., 95 Ill. App. 3d 552 (1981) (post-judgment intervention considerations; protective rights)