Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division
March 31, 2008, Decided; March 31, 2008, Opinion Filed
[**1168] [****99] [*1018] PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:
Defendant Caroline Cogtella filed a lawsuit against defendants DePaul University (DePaul), L&L Engineers and Holabird & Root (H&R), alleging that she suffered bodily injury due to her exposure to the fluorescent lighting selected and installed in DePaul University's Goldblatt building. H&R tendered its defense of Cogtella's complaint to plaintiff American Economy Insurance Co. (American Economy) because American Economy was the insurer of Metrick Electric Co. (Metrick), the electrical subcontractor that H&R hired to install the lighting at the Goldblatt building and H&R was a named additional insured on Metrick's insurance policy. American Economy denied coverage and filed this declaratory judgment action as to its duty to defend in the Cogtella litigation. [***2] The trial court, in considering cross-motions for summary judgment, held that American Economy had an obligation to defend H&R in the Cogtella litigation.
American Economy appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that American Economy had a duty to defend H&R because [*1019] the complaint filed by Cogtella did not allege any negligence by Metrick and because the trial court improperly considered a third-party complaint filed by DePaul to find such a duty.
In December 1995, Cogtella filed her complaint for negligence, professional negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against H&R, DePaul, and L&L Engineers. Cogtella's complaint alleged the following facts.
On or about November 1, 1991, the City of Chicago (City) and DePaul entered into an agreement in which the City sold real estate known as the Goldblatt building to DePaul, and DePaul, in turn, granted the City a leasehold interest for a portion of the building for City offices. Pursuant to that agreement, the City contracted with H&R to be the architect and general contractor for the design and construction of the City's space in the Goldblatt building. L&L Engineers was the electrical subcontractor on this [***3] project. All plans and specifications for the design and construction of the City's space were submitted to DePaul for approval.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
382 Ill. App. 3d 1017 *; 886 N.E.2d 1166 **; 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 258 ***; 320 Ill. Dec. 97 ****
AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLABIRD AND ROOT, Defendant-Appellee (DePaul University, The City of Chicago, L&L Engineers, and Caroline Cogtella, Defendants).
Subsequent History: Released for Publication May 27, 2008.
Related proceeding at Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. DePaul Univ., 383 Ill. App. 3d 172, 890 N.E.2d 582, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 496, 321 Ill. Dec. 860 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., 2008)
Appeal granted by Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Holabird & Root, 2008 Ill. LEXIS 1107 (Ill., Sept. 24, 2008)
Prior History: [***1] Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. 99 CH 04867. Honorable Aaron Jaffe, Judge Presiding.
Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Holabird & Root, 2006 Ill. App. LEXIS 426 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist., May 30, 2006)
coverage, trial court, insured, installation, third-party, underlying action, duty to defend, lighting, fluorescent lighting, allegations, space, declaratory judgment action, additional insured, insurance policy, reviewing court, subcontractor, employees, fluorescent light, deposition, diffusers, injuries, parties, site, summary judgment motion, insurance company, summary judgment, endorsement, electrical, obligation to defend, declaratory
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, General Overview, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Question of Law, Supporting Materials, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Entire Contract, Liability & Performance Standards, Good Faith & Fair Dealing, Duty to Defend, Ambiguous Terms, Construction Against Insurers, Coverage Favored, Exclusions, Parol Evidence, Extrinsic Evidence, Remedies, Declaratory Judgments, Indemnification