Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
December 29, 1983, Filed
[*302] [**472] [****849] This appeal arises from the trial court's determination in a declaratory judgment proceeding that the plaintiff, The Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York (Fidelity), was under no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured, defendant Envirodyne Engineers, Inc. (Envirodyne), in a separate personal injury claim filed by one Ben E. Guzman. Envirodyne was insured by Fidelity under a comprehensive general liability policy. The policy contained an exclusion providing: "It is agreed that the insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render any professional services by or for the names insured including * * * supervisory, [***2] inspection or engineering services."
Guzman was allegedly injured while working as an employee at a construction project. Envirodyne was engaged as the project's consulting engineer by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. Guzman brought suit against both Envirodyne and the Highway Authority, alleging that both parties had violated the Structural Work Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, pars. 60-69) and that both parties were also liable in negligence.
Fidelity defended Envirodyne in the Guzman case under a reservation [*303] of rights. It concurrently filed a suit for a declaratory judgment against Envirodyne alleging that Envirodyne's activities at the job site "were 'supervisory, inspection or engineering services' within the purview of" the endorsement in their policy. Therefore, Fidelity contended, Envirodyne had no coverage under the policy and Fidelity was under no obligation to defend or indemnify Envirodyne in the Guzman lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity and against Envirodyne. Envirodyne now appeals.
Two broad contentions have been argued by Envirodyne throughout its brief. Envirodyne first contends that the court in [***3] the declaratory judgment proceeding improperly looked beyond the complaint in the underlying personal injury case when it ruled upon Fidelity's duty to defend Envirodyne in the Guzman lawsuit. The second argument raised by Envirodyne is that the declaratory proceeding determined one of the ultimate issues upon which recovery was predicated in the Guzman case and that the trial court's ruling was therefore improper under Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers (1976), 64 Ill. 2d 187, 355 N.E.2d 24.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
122 Ill. App. 3d 301 *; 461 N.E.2d 471 **; 1983 Ill. App. LEXIS 2729 ***; 77 Ill. Dec. 848 ****
THE FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENVIRODYNE ENGINEERS, INC., et al., Defendants (Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., Defendant-Appellant)
Subsequent History: [***1] Rehearing Denied March 22, 1984.
Prior History: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. James C. Murray, Judge, presiding.
Disposition: Judgment affirmed.
insurer, trial court, declaratory, declaratory judgment, coverage, declaratory judgment action, consulting engineer, underlying case, duty to defend, ultimate fact, lawsuit, reservation of rights, insured's liability, theory of recovery, underlying action, summary judgment, job site, estopped, parties
Insurance Law, Liability & Performance Standards, Good Faith & Fair Dealing, Duty to Defend, Remedies, Declaratory Judgments, General Overview, Procedure, Evidence & Trial, Burdens of Proof, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Estoppel & Waiver, Equitable Estoppel