Q&H Obtains Summary Judgment In Additional Insured Claim

Chicago associate Michele Oshman recently obtained summary judgment on an additional insured insurance coverage claim in the Chancery Division of Cook County Circuit Court arising out of a bodily injury at a construction site.  In Pekin Ins. Co. v. Roszak/ADC, LLC, et al., case number 08 CH 30823, our client Roszak and its insurer sought additional insured coverage from Pekin, the insurer of co-defendant Rockford Ornamental Iron, Inc.

Pekin's additional insured provision provided coverage only where the additional insured was liable for an act or omission committed solely by the named insured (Rockford), and specifically stated that there was no coverage for liability arising out of the additional insured's (Roszak's) sole acts or omissions.  Pekin denied coverage and instigated the coverage action.  The underlying complaint set forth allegations solely and separately against Roszak and Rockford, but alleged that Roszak acted through its agents at the site.  Roszak argued that the underlying complaint’s allegations were sufficient to assert liability against Roszak that could be incurred solely as a result of some act or omission by named insured Rockford. 

Pekin argued that there must be an express allegation of Roszak's vicarious liability for Rockford's acts or omissions in order to find that Roszak was entitled to a defense as an additional insured.  Judge Mary Anne Mason rejected Pekin's argument and found that the underlying complaint could support a finding of Roszak's vicarious liability for Rockford's acts or omissions, and granted summary judgment to Roszak, and against Pekin, on the duty to defend issue.  Pekin's time to appeal the ruling had not expired as of the time of this note.