Call One Inc. v. Berkley Ins. Co.

Call One Inc. v. Berkley Ins. Co.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In 2019, Plaintiff Call One Inc. ("Call One"), a telecommunications business, received a subpoena duces tecum ("OAG Subpoena") served by the Office of the Illinois Attorney General ("OAG") and issued pursuant to the Illinois False Claims Act ("IFCA"), 740 ILCS 175/1 et seq. Call One had purchased a Directors, Officers, and Corporate liability insurance policy ("Berkley Policy") from Defendant Berkley Insurance Company ("Berkley"). When faced with the OAG Subpoena, Call One tendered a claim to Berkley seeking defense costs in connection both with the OAG Subpoena and the potential underlying IFCA action. After initially denying any defense, Berkley agreed to cover the costs incurred by Call One in responding to the OAG Subpoena. Berkley, however, denied any coverage related to the underlying IFCA claims. On its own, faced with mounting defense costs and significant financial exposure, Call One entered [*2]  into a settlement agreement with the State of Illinois. Contending that Berkley had both a duty to defend and indemnify the IFCA claims, Call One has filed the present action for breach of contract (Count I) and bad faith denial of coverage (Count II). Berkley now seeks dismissal the complaint in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 12.) For the reasons discussed below, its motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

For purposes of the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and views those facts in the light most favorable to Call One, the non-moving party. Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007). The complaint alleges as follows.

I. Underlying Litigation

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.