Illinois Appellate Court Limits Uninsured Motorist Claim for Workers' Compensation Benefit Claim - Burcham v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co.
An Illinois employee who was involved in a car accident during the course of his employment sought to recoup payments from both his employer's workers' compensation policy and its car insurance policy. When the insurance company denied his claims, the employee filed a lawsuit in order to recoup those costs. And while the Illinois Appellate Court allowed some of the plaintiff's claims, it denied others in Burcham v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101035.
In 2007, the plaintiff, Curtis Burcham, was driving a truck for his employer, P&M Mercury Mechanical Corporation (P&M), when he was struck by an uninsured motorist. Burcham sustained multiple injuries from the truck accident and had to undergo several surgeries. Because the accident occurred while Burcham was working, his employer, P&M, paid for his medical expenses and lost wages out of its workers' compensation policy. To date, P&M has paid $490,000 for medical expenses, more than $100,000 for temporary-total incapacity, and continues to pay $925 per week based on Burcham's 2/3 weekly wage.
P&M also had an uninsured and underinsured motorist policy through West Bend Mutual Insurance Company. Since the other driver involved in Burcham's truck accident was not insured, he sought to receive additional payments from West Bend under P&M's truck insurance policy. However, West Bend denied the claim, citing a provision in its policy that it "will not pay for any element of loss if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of loss under any worker's compensation, disability benefits or similar law." West Bend's position was that since Burcham was already receiving workers' compensation payments for the truck accident that he was not entitled to any money from West Bend's uninsured motorist policy.
The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled on a spoliation claim in a product liability lawsuit arising out of a 2004 car accident. The trial court had ruled that the insurer for the defendant vehicle salvage company did not have to contribute to any settlement that might arise out the salvage company's inappropriate destruction of the relevant vehicle. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling and found that the salvage company's insurance policy did in fact cover any claims arising out of spoliation of evidence. As a result of the appellate court's decision, the defendant's insurance company will now have to pay any reasonable damages arising out of the spoliation claim. 
Cell phones have made it easier for people to stay connected and to access data while on the go. However, cell phones can cause 
It is common knowledge that insurance companies tend to drag their feet when it comes to paying out on insurance policies. Therefore, there are laws in place to prevent insurance companies from acting in bad faith and requiring them to uphold their end of the bargain. However, in the lawsuit of 
A Circuit Court judge ruled on a provision in an insurance policy claim that arose out of a 2003 Chicago porch collapse. At issue was whether or not the death and injuries of several individuals was the result of a single occurrence. The judge decided in favor of the defendant insurance company, which contended that the injuries arising out of the porch collapse constituted a single occurrence in 
The 
The facts of the case involved a union carpenter who suffered serious injuries to his head, neck, and back when he fell on his head en route to the hospital after suffering heatstroke on the job. Over the next two years, the Illinois carpenter was unable to return to his normal duties at Interstate Scaffolding, Inc. During this period he fluctuated between not working at all and times of working light duty per his doctor's instructions. 
Starting in the 1990s insurance companies began taking advantage of baby boomers by scooping up thousands of individual long-term care insurance policies. It seems that the expectation by the insurance companies was that the buyers would eventually give up paying the annual premiums and close out the files by taking the collected premium. 
It had been argued that Zurich should be obligated to provide co-primary insurance coverage because it issued a trucker’s insurance policy to Rose Services. Zurich argued that coverage was barred because a reciprocal coverage provision in its policy meant that unless it provided coverage to Franklin, Zurich was not obligated to provide coverage to Key. 
Based on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 182 Ill.2d 240 (1998), the First District Court reversed a ruling for 
Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that's when things get complicated.
State Farm insured the vehicle that was damaged and filed suit against Pat Santucci for property damage only. Santucci was part owner of P.S. Coyote, a corporation that operated out of Santucci's Illinois property, where he also individually owned the horses, outbuildings and barn involved in the accident. Statewide covered P.S. Coyote and Santucci under a commercial general liability policy.
Plaintiff Galvan was taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago by ambulance after being injured in an automobile accident. Upon his discharge 15 days later he was presented with a hospital bill for $87,033. In his claim against Northwestern he alleged that their practice of billing uninsured patients twice the amount of insured patients was unfair and deceptive.
The statute seeks to protect construction parties from having to defend against stale claims. Since its inception the statute has been a balancing act between the rights of the injured party and the rights of the party responsible for the construction. Illinois courts generally have limited the statute to apply to claims of construction or improvement to real property. However, where some courts differ is on claims brought as to duties of maintenance and inspection.
