St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. City of Waukegan
2017 IL App (2d) 160381
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Juan Rivera was arrested in 1992, confessed after intense questioning, and was convicted; his conviction was reversed twice, retried, and he ultimately was exonerated and released in 2012.
- Rivera sued the City of Waukegan and officers (section 1983 and state tort claims) alleging coerced/false confession, Brady violations, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and related claims; the complaint incorporated allegations spanning the 1990s through his exoneration.
- The City tendered defense/indemnity to its insurers (St. Paul and Travelers) for policies in effect from Nov. 1, 2008 to Nov. 1, 2010 (and Travelers to Nov. 1, 2011); the insurers filed for declaratory judgment that they owed no duty to defend or indemnify for Rivera’s suit.
- The insurers argued coverage requires the injury or wrongful act to "happen while" the policy was in effect; they contended Rivera’s injurious law-enforcement acts (coercion, withholding/destruction of evidence) occurred in the 1990s, before the 2008–09 policy period.
- The City argued the 2008–09 policies were triggered by wrongful acts during Rivera’s third trial (2009)—e.g., use of the confession at trial and alleged Brady failures as continuing/worsening conduct—and urged adoption of a multi-trigger approach endorsed by some federal decisions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurers, holding Rivera’s claims presented a single occurrence arising before the 2008–09 policies; the appellate court affirmed, applying and reaffirming prior Illinois appellate holdings rejecting multiple-trigger theories in wrongful-conviction contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Insurers) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera's Brady and Fifth Amendment claims triggered coverage under 2008–09 policies | No — the wrongful law-enforcement acts (coercion, withholding/destroying exculpatory evidence) occurred in the 1990s, before the policy period | Yes — use of the confession and Brady-related injuries occurred (or continued to occur) at the 2009 trial and thus during the policy period | Held: No — the wrongful acts that caused Rivera's injury occurred before the 2008–09 policies; claims did not trigger coverage |
| Whether a multi-/multiple-trigger theory applies (separate occurrences for later trials or acts) | Single occurrence: the prosecution, conviction, and associated misconduct form one continuous cause that predates the 2008–09 policies | Multi-trigger: each discrete injury (e.g., use of confession at retrial, suppression at subsequent proceedings) can trigger coverage when it occurs | Held: Rejected multi-trigger; followed prior Illinois appellate rulings that wrongful-conviction claims constitute a single cause/occurrence |
| Duty to defend vs. duty to indemnify (timing and ripeness) | Coverage absent because operative wrongful acts were outside policy period; duty to defend/indemnify not triggered | Duty to defend exists for plausible claims arising during policy period (relied on federal district rulings) | Held: Duty to defend not triggered under these policies because the alleged law-enforcement activities causing injury occurred earlier |
| Whether policy interpretation renders coverage illusory | Policy language is clear: coverage only for injury/damage that "happens while" policy in effect; not illusory if wrongful acts had occurred during policy term | Holding makes promised coverage illusory because damage (incarceration) continued into policy period | Held: Not illusory — the insurers would have covered such wrongful acts if they had occurred during the policy term; here they did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (false-confession/due-process actionable separate from use at trial)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (absolute witness immunity for testifying officials)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (double jeopardy/double-sentence principles on retrial)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (look to underlying complaint to determine if it triggers coverage)
- Nicor, Inc. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 407 (cause theory for single occurrence/continuing effect analysis)
- Gillen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 215 Ill. 2d 381 (policy interpretation principles; burden on insured)
- Addison Ins. Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446 (insured bears burden to show claim falls within coverage)
- People v. Richardson, 234 Ill. 2d 233 (totality-of-circumstances test for voluntariness of confession)