BROADCASTS.com

b'

Immediate Notice Requirement Defeats Claim\\nIHC Construction Companies, LLC ("IHC") and MA Rebar Services, Inc. ("MA\\n Rebar"), appealed a final summary judgment entered in favor of \\nWestfield Insurance Company ("Westfield") in Westfield\'s declaratory \\njudgment action against IHC, MA Rebar, and Wayne McClure.\\xa0\\xa0 In\\xa0 \\nWestfield Insurance Company v. MA Rebar Services, Inc., IHC Construction\\n Companies, LLC, and Wayne Kelly McClure, No. 1-23-0161, 2023 IL App \\n(1st) 230161-U, Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Fourth \\nDivision (July 27, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.\\n\\nFACTS\\n\\nIn 2016 IHC was the general contractor for a municipal construction \\nproject ("the Project") and that IHC had hired MA Rebar as a \\nsubcontractor on the Project. As a condition of its subcontract, MA \\nRebar was required to obtain liability insurance. In accordance with the\\n subcontract, MA Rebar obtained the required insurance from Westfield \\nand provided IHC with a certificate of insurance confirming such \\ncompliance.\\n\\nWayne McClure filed a complaint against IHC alleging that he was injured\\n as a result of IHC\'s negligence while working on the Project as an \\nemployee of MA Rebar. IHC promptly notified its insurance carrier, \\nHartford Insurance Company, of the suit, but it did not provide any \\nnotice to Westfield at that time. In July 2018, IHC filed a motion to \\ndismiss McClure\'s complaint. After the circuit court denied the motion \\nin October 2018, IHC filed a third-party complaint against MA Rebar \\nseeking indemnification and contribution.\\n\\nApproximately three months later MA Rebar notified Westfield of IHC\'s \\nthird-party complaint against it. Westfield then sued for declaratory \\njudgment\\xa0 seeking declarations (1) that it has no duty to defend and \\nindemnify MA Rebar and (2) that it owed no coverage obligation to IHC \\ndue to the six-month delay between the time that IHC learned of the \\nMcClure lawsuit and the time that Westfield received notice of the suit.\\n\\nThe circuit court issued a final order granting Westfield\'s motion for \\nsummary judgment and denying IHC and MA Rebar\'s cross-motion.\\n\\nThe circuit court below determined that IHC\'s notice to Westfield was \\nuntimely because IHC had not provided a justifiable excuse for its \\nthree- to six-month delay in notifying Westfield of McClure\'s claim.\\n\\nIHC failed to provide Westfield with notice of the suit for six months \\nafter it received service of the complaint. IHC\'s only justification for\\n the delay in providing notice is that it was attempting to negate the \\nneed for insurance coverage by seeking dismissal of the case, but that \\ndoes not justify the delay.\\n\\nWestfield was entitled to be informed of the suit "immediately," \\nprecisely to allow it to participate in defense actions like motions to \\ndismiss. \\xa0IHC denied Westfield that contractual right by withholding \\nnotice while pursuing the motion to dismiss.\\n\\nThe court concluded that the Insured failed to comply with the terms of \\nan insurance policy notice provision requiring "immediate" notice of any\\n claims when the insurer did not receive notice of a lawsuit against the\\n insured until six months after service of the complaint on the insured.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nThe insured tried to reduce its premium, by moving to dismiss without \\nreporting a claim, found itself to be its own worst enemy. Its scheme to\\n save future premium increases resulted only to eliminate its insurance \\nfor McClure\'s claimed injury and lost over $10 million in available \\ncoverage and the unlimited defense costs. Ignorance can be cured but \\nstupid attempts to save insurance premiums is not curable.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.\\n\\nPlease tell your friends and colleagues abo