August 2016 Case Notes & Comments

"If you can't stand the heat, don't go to Cancun in the summer."~Ben Stein

MONTHLY QUIZ: Forest Preserve District (District) plans, organizes, coordinates, and conducts a bicycle riding event. Prior to the event, District performs trail inspections, trims vegetation near the trails, blows debris from the trail surface, installs caution signs, assigns trail sentinels to assist participants and encourages all participants to wear helmets. While participating in the event, Rider swerves off the trail, falls off his bicycle, and incurs serious bodily injuries that result in his death. Rider's Estate sues District alleging, among other things, that a trail sentinel's actions in "suddenly stepp[ing] out into the middle of trail" and blocking the trail, despite District Supervisor's instructions not to, amount to willful and wanton misconduct (i.e. a deliberate intent to cause harm or an utter indifference or conscious disregard for the welfare of others). District files a motion to dismiss, arguing that District is immune from liability under sections 2-109 and 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Act). Rider's Estate argues that the trail sentinel's conduct of stepping into the trail in front of Rider amounted to willful and wanton misconduct, for which the Act provides no immunity. District argues that the alleged actions of the trail sentinel could not be considered willful and wanton misconduct. Who is right? Are Estate's claims barred by the Act? You be the judge. (Answer below)

WORKERS' COMPENSATION / AWARD OF PPD IN ABSENCE OF AN AMA RATING REPORT / PPD IMPAIRMENT REPORT: Petitioner, a lineman, allegedly injured his low back while getting out of his work truck. Although neither Petitioner nor his Employer submitted a physician's PPD impairment report to support Petitioner's claimed injuries, Arbitrator made an award that included amounts for medical expenses and 15 weeks' permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits, for a 3% loss of the person as a whole. The Commission affirmed and adopted, finding that Section 8.1b of the Act did not require that either party submit a PPD impairment report for the purposes of determining permanent disability. On appeal, Employer argued that the award of PPD was in err because, among other reasons, Petitioner failed to submit a PPD impairment report as listed in Section 8.1b(2) of the Act. On review, the Appellate Court held that the plain language of Section 8.1b placed no explicit requirement on either party to submit a PPD impairment report as a prerequisite to a PPD award of benefits. DISSENT: Justice Hoffman concluded, however, that in the absence of a PPD impairment report prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 8.1b(a), the Commission may not award PPD benefits. EDITOR'S NOTE: Given that the issue is still unresolved, the Petitioner's Workers' Compensation Bar advises against Petitioners trying a case without first submitting a PPD impairment report into evidence. Until resolution, submitting a PPD impairment report may also be advisable for employers and insurers. Corn Belt Energy Corp. v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 2016 IL App (3d) 150311WC (Jun. 28, 2016)

INSURANCE COVERAGE / ABSOLUTE POLLUTION EXCLUSION FOUND AMBIGUOUS: The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") required Owner/Operator of a municipal airport to investigate and submit a plan to remediate various substances discovered at the airport, including an oily sheen, benzopyrene, arsenic, and PCBs. Owner tendered the claim to Insurer. Though the Policy did not define the terms "pollution" or "contamination", the Policy excluded "claims directly or indirectly occasioned by, happening through or in consequence of.... pollution and contamination of any kind whatsoever." Subject to a reservation, Insurer initially agreed to hire counsel to assist Owner in dealing with the IDEM, but later filed a declaratory action against Owner. Citing the pollution exclusion, Insurer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Policy's pollution exclusion barred coverage. The Court, however, denied summary judgment, finding that the exclusion was ambiguous under Indiana insurance law, because it failed to specify which substances qualified as "pollution" or "contamination" under the Policy. As a result of the ambiguity, an "ordinary policy holder of average intelligence" would be unable to tell "to a certainty" whether Insurer "would ... be responsible for damages arising out" the claimed pollution. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Gary-Chicago International Airport Authority, Case No. 2:15-CV-281-JD (N.D. Ind. July 25, 2016).

INSURANCE COVERAGE / FAULTY WORK EXCLUSION: Developer contracted with Roofer in connection with a new condominium building. The contract provided that Roofer must defend and indemnify Developer against liability for Roofer's work and required Roofer to add Developer, as an additional insured, to Roofer's general liability policy. After taking over the building, Association discovered that the roof was defective and sued Developer, alleging fraudulent concealment of the roof defects (but, notably, not alleging general negligence). Developer tendered to Insurer, who declined the tender and filed a declaratory action (but nevertheless defended its policyholder, Roofer, under a reservation of rights). On cross-motions for summary judgment, trial court granted summary judgment for Insurer, holding that there was no duty to defend or indemnify Developer because the complaint did not allege an "occurrence" resulting in "property damage," so as to trigger Insurer's duty to defend. In a split panel, the appellate court affirmed on the grounds that the complaint alleged only non-accidental bad acts of Developer and sought only repair and replacement of faulty work. Although the complaint alleged physical harm to the unit owners' personal property, this allegation did not trigger potential policy coverage because it only bolstered the allegations of faulty work. The individual unit owners were not parties to the lawsuit and the complaint did not specify their claims for damages. DISSENT: The dissent noted that an "insurer's duty to defend does not hinge on the draftsmanship in the underlying complaint of the relative amount of damage sought for particular injuries, and clearly alleged allegations of property damages are not disregarded as 'purely tangential' to other allegations." Westfield v. West Van Buren, LLC, 2016 IL App (1st) 140862 (Jul 20, 2016).

ANSWER TO QUIZ: The District is entitled to dismissal. The claimed actions were not willful and wanton. Even though District Supervisor instructed the trail sentinels not to stand on the path and acknowledged that this action could cause the bicyclists to swerve, the Appellate Court found that such facts, while perhaps incompetent, did not establish an utter indifference or conscious disregard for the welfare of others. Further, District was entitled to immunity under the Act because its actions of placing the trail sentinels at various locations along the path were a "courtesy" to participants and involved an exercise of discretion, to which the Act applied. Lorenc v. Forest Preserve District, 2016 IL App (3d) 150424 (Jul. 22, 2016)

Past Publications


June 2024
May 2024
March 2024
January 2024


December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
March 2023
February 2023


December 2022
October 2022
August 2022
July 2022
April 2022
March 2022
January 2022


December 2021
October 2021
August 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
January 2021


December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
February 2020
January 2020


December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
July 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019


December 2018
October 2018
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018


December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
March 2017
February 2017


December 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
January 2016


December 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015


December 2014
October 2014
September 2014
July 2014
June 2014
April 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014


December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013


December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012


December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011


December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010


December 2009