Ware v. First Specialty Insurance Corporation
983 N.E.2d 1115
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Porch collapse at 713 West Wrightwood, Chicago, in June 2003 killed 12 and injured 29; plaintiffs assigned rights against First Specialty after settling with defendants.
- Policy IRG 49077 provided $1,000,000 per-occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate limits, with an unambiguous definition of occurrence including continuous exposure.
- Consolidated Litigation settled with First Specialty paying $1,000,000 and Philadelphia paying $15,000,000; plaintiffs assigned rights to pursue the difference to aggregate up to $2,000,000.
- Assignment limited plaintiffs to recover the difference between aggregate and per-occurrence limits and then dismissed related claims.
- Plaintiffs filed for declaratory relief seeking an additional $1,000,000; trial court denied; appellate court affirmed First Specialty’s liability limit.
- Court analyzes whether the collapse was a single occurrence under policy terms and applies cause theory and Addison time-and-space test; both lead to one occurrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the porch collapse constitute one or multiple occurrences under the policy? | plaintiffs argue multiple occurrences under Addison. | First Specialty argues single occurrence under policy language and cause theory. | One occurrence; policy language unambiguous and supports single-occurrence result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicor, Inc. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 407 (2006) (defines occurrence and supports cause theory over time-and-space test)
- Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446 (2009) (time-and-space test for ongoing omissions; not controlling here)
- Szczepkowicz v. Illinois National Insurance Co., 185 Ill. App. 3d 1091 (1989) (time relevance in single-occurrence analysis under cause theory)
- Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America v. RSUI Indemnity Co., 844 F. Supp. 2d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (illustrates single-occurrence result for product-related harm under cause theory)
- Pekin Insurance Co. v. Beu, 376 Ill. App. 3d 294 (2007) (unambiguous policy terms applied as written)