Selective Insurance Co. of South Carolina v. Target Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23370

Selective seeks declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify Target under Harbor's policy.
Target and Harbor had a Supplier Agreement (2001) obligating Harbor to maintain CGL coverage and designate Target as additional insured; a separate Program Agreement (2009) governed fittings and terminated July 2010.
Brown sued Target in Illinois for injuries from a falling fitting-room door; Harbor was alleged contributor/negligent in supplying the fitting rooms.
Target tendered defense to Selective; district court held Target was an additional insured and that Selective had both defense and indemnity duties for the Brown action.
Program Agreement terminated in 2010; Supplier Agreement survived termination and required Harbor to maintain insurance and evidence of coverage; Harbor’s product was the fitting-room door; Illinois law governs contract interpretation; Target’s injury arose from Harbor’s product under the policy.
Selective appeals, arguing no coverage or duties; Target cross-moved for summary judgment and prevailed in district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Target is an additional insured under Harbor’s policy	Selective: Supplier Agreement governs and requires Target as additional insured	Target: only in force via Program Agreement; Supplier Agreement’s survival unclear	Yes; Target is an additional insured under the policy.
Whether Brown’s injury falls within the policy’s products-completed operations coverage	Selective: injury caused by Harbor’s product (the door) falls inside coverage	Target: coverage narrowed by policy language	Yes; Brown’s bodily injury was caused by Harbor’s product, triggering coverage.
Duty to defend Target in the Brown litigation	Selective: allegations fall within policy coverage; can consider third-party complaint	Target: defense scope limited to specific allegations	Selective had a duty to defend Target.
Duty to indemnify Target for settlement	Indemnity arises if settlement is for a covered loss reasonably anticipated	Some claims may be non-covered; indemnity limited accordingly	Selective had a duty to indemnify the entire settlement because covered claims were a primary focus.
Choice of law and contract interpretation framework	Apply Illinois law; contracts analyzed as a whole	Refer to forum Minnesota provision but Illinois law governs substantive terms	Illinois law governs; Supplier Agreement survives and governs interpretation.

Santa’s Best Craft, LLC v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 611 F.3d 339 (7th Cir. 2010) (coverage where allegations fall within policy despite labels)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 761 N.E.2d 1221 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (interpretation of coverage based on factual allegations, not labels)
Landmark American Ins. Co. v. Hilger, 838 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2016) (insurer may consider beyond the underlying complaint in declaratory judgment actions)
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 930 N.E.2d 1011 (Ill. 2010) (allowing consideration of third-party complaints in defense determinations)
Rosalind Franklin Univ. of Med. & Sci. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 8 N.E.3d 20 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014) (primary focus standard for indemnity in mixed claims settlements)
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Microplastics, Inc., 622 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2010) (duty to defend broader than duty to indemnify; coverage triggers)
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 62 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1995) (duty to indemnify determined after liability; settlement considerations)
Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Artisan & Truckers Cas. Co., 796 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2015) (indemnity and coverage interpretation principles)