delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs Konstant Products, Inc. (Konstant), Roger W Meyers (Meyers) and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), individually and as subrogee of Konstant and Meyers, appeal from the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Compаny (Liberty Mutual), Ricky Feltes (Feltes) and his wife, Patricia Feltes. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the circuit court erred in (1) concluding that an allegation made by Feltes in his original complaint constituted a judicial admission; (2) failing to consider extrinsic evidence when determining Liberty Mutual’s obligations to Meyers and Konstant; and (3) failing to consider Feltes’ second amended complaint in determining Liberty Mutual’s duty to defend. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This cause of action arose as a result of an accident oсcurring at Konstant Products’ facility in Quincy, Illinois, in which Feltes was injured. On April 1, 2003, Feltes, during the course of his employment with Alter Scrap Co., drove an Alter Scrap truck to Konstant Products’ facility to pick up a dumpster of scrap iron and load it onto his truck. As Feltes stoоd in front of the truck, it began to roll forward and pinned Feltes between the truck and the dumpster. Meyers, a Konstant Products employee, heard Feltes’ cries for help and got into the truck. In attempting to back the truck away from Feltes, Meyers placed it in the wrong gear and drove the truck into Feltes. Feltes filed a verified complaint against Konstant Products and Meyers. In paragraph 6A of the complaint, he alleged that Meyers negligently and carelessly operated the truck “against [Feltes’] verbal request.” St. Paul, Konstant Products’ commercial liability insurer, accepted and undertook the defense of Konstant Products and Meyers. St. Paul then tendered the defense to Alter Scrap’s auto carrier, Liberty Mutual, on the basis that the Liberty Mutual auto policy provided coverage for Meyers as a “permitted user” of the Alter Scrap truck. Liberty Mutual subsequently denied the tender because it contended that Meyers was not a permissive user since the verified complaint expressly alleged that Meyers operated the vehicle against Feltes’ objections. Feltes subsequently filed a second amended verified complaint, which omitted paragraph 6A. St. Paul continued defending Konstant and Meyers and ultimately settled the lawsuit on their behalf for $40,000.
Thereаfter, St. Paul filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that Liberty Mutual had a duty to defend Konstant and Meyers in connection with the Feltes’ lawsuit and further sought reimbursement of defense costs and the $40,000 settlement payment. Ultimately, both Liberty Mutual and St. Paul filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion, from which plaintiffs now appeal.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, plaintiffs contend the circuit court erred in concluding that paragraph 6A of the original complaint constituted a judicial аdmission that was binding throughout the litigation for purposes of determining Liberty Mutual’s duty to defend. Specifically, paragraph 6A alleged:
“Against Plaintiffs verbal request, [Meyers] negligently and carelessly entered Plaintiff’s vehicle, against Plaintiff’s request and drove the vehicle into the dumpster three (3) times causing Plaintiff each time to be pinned between the truck and the dumpster.”
Feltes’ second amended complaint was identical to the original complaint, except that paragraph 6A was omitted. The circuit court, in grаnting Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment, found that Feltes’ allegation in the original complaint that Meyers did not have permission to drive the truck was a binding judicial admission that “did not go away” merely by filing an amended complaint.
Judicial admissions are formal admissions in the plеadings that have the effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact. Robins v. Lasky,
Here, it is undisputed that the original verified complaint contained Feltes’ admission in paragraph 6A that unequivocally stated that Feltes did nоt grant Meyers permission to use the truck. Additionally, there is no evidence or assertion that this admission was a result of a mistake or inadvertence. Thus, Feltes’ judicial admission remained binding on him throughout the litigation, notwithstanding the amended complaint.
The admission alsо remained binding on Liberty Mutual in determining its duty to defend. Our supreme court has made clear that Illinois adheres to an “eight corners” analysis when determining a carrier’s duty to defend. Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc.,
We find this court’s decision in State Security Insurance Co. v. Linton,
Plaintiffs also contend that the circuit court improperly concluded that its review was confined to the original complaint and that the court should have considered evidence outside the complaint in determining Liberty Mutual’s duty to dеfend. Plaintiffs rely on several cases including Associated Indemnity Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America,
“We do not even reach the issue of when, if ever, an insurance carrier is obligated to сonduct an independent investigation of the facts underlying a complaint filed against a putative insured. All we hold is that an insurance carrier may not ignore unpleaded facts within its knowledge, which it knows to be correct, and which, when taken together with the complaint’s allegations, indicate that the claim asserted against the putative insured is potentially within the coverage of the insurance policy. [(Emphasis in original.)]
Of course, if the complaint contains allegations which if true would exclude cоverage under the policy, the insurer has no obligation to defend.” (Emphasis added and omitted.) Associated Indemnity Co.,68 Ill. App. 3d at 817 .
Applying the reasoning in Associated Indemnity Co. to this case, plaintiffs’ argument fails. First, Liberty Mutual was under no duty to conduct an independent investigatiоn as to whether Meyers had permission to drive the truck. Furthermore, Associated makes clear that if the complaint contains allegations, which, if true, would bar coverage, then the carrier would have no duty to defend. Thus, the nonpermission allegation in the original complaint, which remained binding throughout the litigation, clearly would disqualify Meyers as a permissive driver and exclude coverage under the policy.
Plaintiffs also rely on American Economy Insurance Co. v. Holabird & Root,
However, the instant case is distinguishable from Holabird. First, the critical fact at issue (permission) was pled by Feltes (unlike Holabird, where the fact was not pled). Moreover, there is nothing in the record, nor did plaintiffs present any evidence, to indicate that Feltes had granted Meyers permission to use the truck. Thus, Liberty Mutual was never aware of “a true, but unpleaded fact” (that Meyers did actually have permission), as required by the Holabird holding. In contrast, American Economy, in Holabird, did have actual knowledge of a true but unpleaded fact that would have been relevant to its duty-to-defend analysis by the filing of a third-party complaint, which made American Economy aware that its insured was alleged to have negligently performed the installation even though that was nоt alleged in the underlying complaint. Thus, the Holabird decision does not apply here.
Plaintiffs also argue that, based on deposition testimony, Meyers had implied permission to drive the truck due to exigent circumstances and thus should qualify as an insured under the Liberty Mutuаl auto policy. Implied permission generally may be inferred from a course of conduct or relationship between the parties in which there is mutual acquiescence or lack of objection under circumstances signifying permission. Country Mutual Insurаnce Co. v. Bowe,
Finally, plaintiffs contend that Libеrty Mutual owed a primary duty to defend and indemnify Meyers and Konstant against the Feltes’ lawsuit merely because the truck involved in the accident was owned by Feltes’ employer. Plaintiffs reason that since the Liberty Mutual auto policy provides primary coverage for any covered auto and because Illinois public policy mandates that primary liability should rest with the insurance carrier for the owner of the auto rather than on the insurance carrier for the driver, Liberty Mutual’s policy should respond. Hоwever, plaintiffs fail to recognize that although Liberty Mutual’s policy is a primary policy, coverage is still limited to those entities that qualify as insureds under the policy, such as the named insured, its employees and permitted users. According to plaintiffs’ logic, the driver of the vehicle would be irrelevant since the owner’s policy would respond as primary in all instances. However, this logic is misplaced since, for example, if a vehicle is stolen and the driver subsequently causes injury or damage to a third party, it would not be fair to force the auto owner’s insurance policy to respond in that instance. Moreover, it would be increasingly difficult for carriers to accurately underwrite risks and assess proper premiums when potentially all drivers, whether they havе permission or not, would have to be covered. Accordingly, we reject plaintiffs’ argument that Liberty Mutual’s policy should respond as primary merely because the truck in the underlying accident was owned by Liberty Mutual’s insured, Alter Scrap.
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment granting Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, EJ., and THEIS, J., concur.