## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 N OR T HF I EL D I NSURANCE C O M PA NY an d S T . P AUL F IR E & M ARI NE I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v.
C ITY OF W AUK EG AN, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C7402

— Ch arl es R. N orgle, Judge .
A RGUED M AY 24, 2012

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 21, 2012

Befo re C UDAH Y, K ANN E , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Nor th fi el d I ns ur an ce Co m pan y an d St. PaulFi re & M ar i ne Insurance Com pany ( col l ecti vel y, the “insurer s”) provi ded l aw enf or cem ent l i abi l i ty c o v e r a g e t o th e c i t y o fWa u k e g a n, I l l i n o i s , a n d i t s e mplo yee s acting w i thi n the sco pe of em plo ym ent. I n 20 09, Bennie Stark s fi l ed a c i vi l r i ghts sui t a gainst the ci ty and a h an d fu l o fcurr ent a nd f or m erW aukeg an pol i ce2 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729

N orthfie ld iss u ed a third polic y covering N ovem ber 1, 1995, 1 to N ovem ber 1, 1997, but the parti es agree thatthi s polic y is not ati ss ue. offic er s, am on g ot h er s, alle gin g t h a t e ac h p lay ed a ro le i n h i s d e c a d e s - o l d wr o n g fu l c o n v i c t i o n . I n r e s p o n s e , t he i ns ur er s fi l ed ane i g ht

- co untde cl ar atory j udg m en t acti on s eek i ng a decl ar ati on that t h ey have no duty t o defe nd o r i nd em ni fy the ci ty orem plo yee s. The di stri ct co ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j ud gm en t i n f av o r o fthe i nsure rs , re aso ni ng that the disputed i nsuranc e p ol i ci es did notco verthe ci ty at the t i m e o fthe alleged wrongd o i n g . We a ffi r m.
I. B ACK GR OUN D The unde r l y i ng f ac ts a r e undi spu te d. Nor th fi el d I nsura nce Com pa n y i ssued two co m prehensi ve gener al l i abi l i ty pol i ci es to W aukeg an, effecti ve N ove m ber1, 1991 , t o N ove m ber1, 19 95. The two N or thfi el d pol i ci es 1 ati ss ue c o nt aine d a l aw e nf o r ce m en t l i ab i l i typr o vi si o n, whi c h p r o v i d e d th a tth e i n s u r e r w o u l d c o v e r a l l s u ms f orwh ich t h e c i ty “shal l be obl i gat ed to pay by re aso n o fe r r ors, om is si o ns o r ne g l i g en t ac ts a r i singo uto fthe perf or m ance o fthe A ssur ed’s d u ties wh i l e a cti ng as a l aw enf or cem ent o ffi ci alo r offi cerin th e regula r cour se ofpubli c em plo ym ent. ” Fr om N ove m ber1, 20 06, to N ove m ber 1, 2009 , the ci ty m ai ntai ned a si m ilar pol i cy w i th S t. PaulFi re & M ar i ne Ins u ra nce Com pany. Li ke the Northfi el d pol i cy, the St
. PaulFi re pol i cy conta i ned a l aw enf or cem ent l i abi l i ty provi si on wh i ch pro vi dedN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 3

co ve r ag e f o r “ wro ng fula ct [ s]
. . . c om m i tt ed whi l e co ndu cti ng l aw enf or cem ent acti vi ti es or oper ati ons.” Both po l i c i e s c o v er ed the c i t y o n a n “ o c c ur r e nc e b a s i s . ” And , the pol i ci es defined “occur re nc e” and “perso nal i nj ury” to i nc l ude f al se a r r es t, f al se i m pr i so nm en t, mal i ci o us pros ecuti on, and other ci vi l r i ghts vi ol ati on s. Both insu rers also provid ed coverage to the city’s officers and offi cials act i ng withi n the sco pe ofthei r em plo ym ent. Evi dentl y, ot her i nsurance car ri er s pro vi ded co ver age duri ng the i nter veni ng y ear s, an d those car ri er s’ d u t i e s t o d e f en d a r e b e i n gl i t i g a t e d i n a tl e a s tt wo separ ate decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent a cti ons. I n J an ua r y 2 00 9, Be nni e S ta r k s fi l ed th e un d erl y i ng c ivil su it, w h ich th e c ity qu ick ly te n d er ed to N or th field and St. PaulFi re fo r a d efense. Bro adlyspeak i ng, S tar ks al l eges th atthe c i tya nd s ev er alpo l i ce o ffi ce r s, a m o ng othe rs , unl aw full y conspi re d to convi ct hi m o fcr i m es h e d id n ot c om m it. In h is com p lain t, St a r k s p rim ar ily see ks dam age s for f al se ar re st and i m pri sonm ent, wro ng fulc o nv i ct i o n, den i al o fdue pr o ce ss , a nd mal i ci o us pros ecutio n. The bac kgr ound ofhi s s uiti s a s fol l ows. In Janu ar y 1 986, a w om an r epor ted to the W aukeg an p o l i ce tha t sh e ha d b ee n a tt ac k ed an d r ape d. Officers qui ck l y a r r es te d Starks, who was the n c ha r g ed an d c o nvicted of th ree cou nt s of sex ua l assa ul t. T w en ty years i n t o hi s s i x t y - y e a r s e n t e n c e , n e wl y s u r f a c e d D NA ev i den ce r ai sed ser i o us do ubt s ab o uthi s g ui l t, a nd on M ar ch 23, 20 06, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l at e C ourtr eve rs ed Sta rk s’s c on vic tio n an d ord er ed a n ew tria l. On Januar y 2 0, 20 07, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courti ssued the r el ate d m andate r etur ni ng j uri sdic ti on to th e t ri al4 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729

On t he e ve ofor al ar gum en t, the in sur ers as ke d us t o s t ri ke 2 the app el lant s’ m oti on to c it e sup plem ental authori ty, w hich inclu d ed a citatio n t o a n d a na lysis of the tria l cou rt’ s n o lle pr o s e quior der. T he i ns ur er s ar gue thatthe appe l l ant s ’ m ot i on w as su ppl e m e nt a l e vi de nc e tha twa s n otbe f or e the di s t r ic t c o u r tr a th e r th a n s u p p l e me n t a l a u th o r i t y . S e man t i c s a s i de , we t ake j udi c i al no t i c e of the t ri al c our t ’ s or der an d deny the in su re rs ’ m o tio n to str ik e. S ee In re S al em , 465 F. 3d 7 6 7, 771 (7th C ir. 20 06 ) (takin g jud icial no tice of stat e -c o u rt d ock ets a n d o p in io n s). c o ur t
. Atthe t i me S t a r k s’ s c o nv i c t i o n wa s o v e r t urne d, st ate pro secuto rs m ove d to re - pros ecute hi m . But on M ay 15 , 201 2, on e w ee k b efo r e o r a l arg u m en t in th is appeal, the sta te tr i alco urt enter ed a nol l epros e q uio rder effecti vel y t er m i nati ng anyfurthercr i m i nal pro c eed i ngs a g a i n s th i m. 2 O n N o v e m ber 25, 2009, N orthfield an d St. Pau l Fire fi l ed an ei ght- count decl ar ato ryj ud gm ent a cti on, 28 U
. S. C. § 2 201, se eking a dec lar at i on that i t has no du ty to de fe nd o r i nd e mni fy the a pp e l l a nt s f o r the c l a i ms m ade i n St ar ks’ s s uit
. The act i on was in i ti al l y dock ete d w i th J udg e Coa r . In June 2 01 0, the di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e appe l l an ts ’ mot i o n t o s ta y the pr o ce eding s pen di ng r e s o l u t i o n o fS t a r k s ’ s c r i mi n a l c a s e , a n d i n D e c e mbe r 2 01 0, i t en te r ed su m m ary j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe i nsurer s. The appel l ants fi l ed a t i m el y a pp ealo fbo th d e c i s i o n s , wh i c h we d o c k e t e d a s 1 1

- 12 15
. O n a p p e a l, we iss u ed a lim ite d rem an d so t h e d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld c lea rly sp ell ou t t h e t er m s o f t h e d ec lar at or y re lief. N or t hf i e l d Ins . Co. v. Ci ty of

Waukegan , N o. 11

- 1215 , sl i p op. ( 7thN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 5 Ci r . Aug
. 2 3 , 2 0 1 1 )
. In the i nt e r i m , J ud g e Co a r r e t i r e d, an d the c as e was r ea ss i g ne d t o Judg e N o r g l e, who pr o m ptly e nt ered a Rul e 58 ( a) j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe i nsurer s. The appel l ants fi l ed a ti m el y a pp ealo fthat rul i ng, wh i ch w e dock ete d as 1 1- 3729
. On Decem ber13 , 2011 , we conso l i dated the tw o appeal s forpurposes o fb r i efi nga nd di spo si ti o n.
II. A NA LYSIS O n ap p eal, the ap p ell an ts argu e the dist r ict court er r ed by( 1) g r an tings um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe insu re r s; ( 2) de ny i ngthe i r mot i o n t o s ta y the de cl ar at ory j ud gm ent a cti on pending re sol uti on o fS tar ks’ s cr i m i nal p rocee d in g; an d ( 3) granting ove rbroad de claratory re l i ef

. W e t ake ea ch ar gum ent ind i vi du al l y.

A. S um m ary Judg m e nt W e r evi ew gr an ts o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , view in gthe r ec o r d i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the ap p ella n ts an d d ra w in g a ll re a s o n ab le in fer en c es in th eir fav or . D raperv. M arti n , 664 F.3d 111 0, 1113 ( 7th Cir. 20 11 )
. S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i ate when“ th e m ova nt sho w s th at ther e i s no ge nuine dispute as to any m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw . ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(a). T h e q u es tio n be for e u s is w h et h er th e a lleg at ion s in S ta r k s’ s co m pl aintt r i g g erNor th fi el d’ s o r S t. Pa ulFi re’s du ty to defe nd

. To a nsw erthatquesti on, w e l oo k t o6 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 I l l i nois l aw , wh i ch the parti es agr ee gov er ns thi s di spute. Nat’l C a s. Co. v. M cF at r i dge, 604 F.3d 335 , 338 (7th C ir. 20 10 ). U n d er Ill i n o i s law , w e c om p ar e t h e a lleg at ion s in S ta r k s’ s co m pl aintwi ththe e xpr es s l an g ua g e i n the i nsurance pol i cy to deter m i ne wh etheran insurer ’ s d u ty to d ef e n d h as be en trig ge re d

. G en. A gen ts Ins. C o . of A m ., v. M i dwe s tSp or t i ng G o ods Co. , 828 N .E .2d 10 92 , 109 8 (Ill. 20 05 ). “If th e u n d er lyin g c om p lain t a lleg es fac t s w ith in or p ot en tia lly w ith inp olic y c ov er ag e, an ins u r e r i s ob ligated to defen d i ts insu red even i f th e a ll egation s are gr oundles s, f al se orfra ud ule nt. ” Id. ; ac co r d CM K D e v. Corp. v. W
. Ben d M ut
. Ins . Co. , 917 N
. E.2 d 1155, 11 63 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 2009 ) ( hol ding the duty to def end i s “m uch bro ader” than th e d u ty to ind e m n i fy ). A n ins u re r m ay j u st ifiab ly re fuse t o defe nd the i nsured o nl y i f“i t i s cl e arfr o m the f ac e o fthe unde r l y i ng co m pl aint [ ] tha t th e al l eg at i o ns f ai l to stat e f acts wh i ch br i ng the cas e withi n, o r potenti al l y withi n, the pol i cy’ s co ver age . ” U .S. Fid . & Gu a r. C o . v. Wi l ki n Ins ul at i on Co. , 57 8 N
. E.2 d 926, 93 0 (Ill. 19 91 ); ac co r d L age s t e e -M ul de r, Inc. v . Cons ol
. Ins . Co. , 682 F. 3d 1054, 10 56 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. One such i nstance w h er e a n ins u re r c an j u st ifiab ly re fu se co ve ra ge is when th e unde r l y ing al l eg at i o ns a cc r ue o ut si de o fthe r e l e va n t p olic y p er iod

. Am. S af e ty Cas
. In s . Co
. v . Ci ty of Wauk egan, Il l. , 678 F.3d 475 , 477-79 (7th C ir. 2012); M cF at r i dge, 6 04 F
. 3d at3 44
. Her e, the i ns ur er s ha ve no du t y t o d e fe n d i fS t a r k s ’ s a l l e g a t i o n s o c c u r r e d o u t s i de ofthe pol i cy peri ods. W i th that in m i nd , we turn t o St ar ks’ s co m pla i nt, wh i ch w e l iber al l y c onst rue i n f avo r ofthe appella nts. Wil kin Ins ul atio n Co. , 5 78 N. E. 2d at9 30
. Pa r ag r aphthi r ty
- ni neN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 7 of the com p lai nt perh ap s best su m m a r izes Starks’s c laim s. T h er e, h e a lleg es th at h e w as d ep riv ed o f“h is ri ghts to be fre e fro m unrea sonab l e a rr estand sei zure , fro m w ro n gfu l co n fin em en t a n d im p ris on m en t, an d h is ri ghts to acces s to the Courts and t o a f ai r an d im p ar tial tr i al, a s pr o te ct ed bythe F i r st, F o ur th, F i fth, S i xth, Ei g hth, an d Fou rt ee n th A m en d m en ts .” (St ar k s C o m p l. at 6-7 .) Fr o m tha t, we i nfe r tha t S t a r k s i s a s s e r t i ng c l a i ms f or m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on, wrongful convi cti on, deni alo f due pr o ce ss , a nd fal se a r r es t an d i m pr i so nm en t, the las t o f w h ich is an ov er l a p p i n g th eo ry of re lief, Wallace v. Kato , 5 49 U. S
. 3 84, 3 88 ( 20 07 )
. S ta r k s’ s co m pl aint al so sugge sts thathe intends to br i ng a n i ntenti onal i nfl i ct i o n o fe m o ti o na l di st r es s (II E D) c l ai m o nc e th e cri m i nal pro secuti on a gainst hi m te rm i nates
. ( St ar ks C om p l. at 12 n .3.) B ec au se w e c an im ag in e a n I IE D cla im potenti allyfa l l in g w ith inth e p olic y t er m s, w e w ill a s s u me th a t S t a r k s fu l l y i n t e n d s t o s u b mi t s u c h a c l a i m. See Wilki n Ins ul at i on Co. , 57 8 N
. E.2 d at 9 30 ( i nsurerm ust d efend allclai m s p oten tially w ithin cove rage). W e pause m om en tar i l y t o rej ect the a pp el l ants’ sugg e s t i o n th a tS t a r k s c o u l d h a v e o r p l a n s t o a s s e r tc l a i ms f o r s o m e unkn ow n to r ts g r o unde d i n the F i r sta nd E ighth A m en d m en ts. Pot en tial th eories ofrecovery m i ght incl ud e a depri vati on o fhi s fre edom o fspeec h or relig ion or s om e t y p e o f d elib er at e in d iffer en c e c laim und erthe Eighth A m endm ent. The appel l ants ar gue that b e c a us e S t a r ks re fe r e nc e d the F i r s ta nd Ei g hth Am e nd

m en ts w ith ou t s p ec ifyin g t h e or ies of re lief, w e s h ou ld w ait t o de fi ni ti ve l y de te r m i ne whethe r the i ns ur er s have a duty t o defe nd unti l Sta rk s h as fully o utl i ned8 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 hi s cl ai m s. A l though we a c kn owledge that“the duty t o defe nd does notr equi re thatthe com pla i nt al l ege o r use l an g ua g e affi r m ativ ely b r i ng i ngthe c l ai m s wi th i n the sco pe ofthe pol i cy, ” Am
. Econ. Ins . Co. v. Hol a bird & R oot, 88 6 N. E. 2 d 1 1 6 6 , 1 1 7 1 ( I l l

. App. Ct
. 2 0 0 8 ) , we wi l l not cobbl e t oge thera m or e co m pel l i ng o r com prehensi ve c o mpl a i nttha n wha ti s wr i t t e n o r wh at ca n b e i nfe r r e d. A fter al l, w e a r e ch arged w ith com p aring th e un d erl yi ng co m pla i nt, i nfe re nces, and other known f acts to the i ns ur a nc e p o l i c y, n ots o me hy po the t i c a l o r h o pe dfo r v er si o n. Co n n . In de m. Co
. v . DER Tr av e l S e r v. , Inc. , 32 8 F. 3d 347, 35 0-5 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( sta ti ng “i t i s the actual com pla i nt, n ot so m e hypotheti calve rs i on, thatm ust be co ns idere d”)

. Her e, the r e ar e no s uppo r tinga l l eg at i o ns e v e n h i n t i n ga ta F i r s to r E i g h th A me n dme ntc l a i m. St arks neveral l ege s that hi s r i ght t o f re e s peech o r re l i gi on was supp re sse d, nordoes he a l l ege thathe was s ubj e c t e d t o c r ue l o r u nu s ua l p un i s hm ent o r a nyty pe of d elib er at e in d i f f e re n c e. M or eo ve r, it is d ifficu lt to i m agine a scenar i o w here the cityand i ts pol i ce of f i cer s a re r esponsi bl e f or these t ypes of offenses r atherthan sta te- pri son authori ti es. U l ti m ate l y, nothi ng i n the com plain t o r any g ener ous infe re nce w e m ay gr ant the appel l ants su gg ests that S tar ks has a cl ai m under the Fi rs t o r Eighth A m endm ents. W e no w tur n to the thre e d iscret e a l l ega ti ons St ar ks m ak es i n hi s co m pla i nt. W e a nal yze ea ch i nd i vi du al ly t o de t e r mi ne wh e the r the r e i s a du t y t o de fe nd

.N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 9 1. F al s eAr r e s tan d Im pr i s onment S ta r k s fi r sta l l eg es tha t he was f al se l y a r r este d a nd i m pri sone d fo r a cr i m e he did notco m m i t. W e nee d not spend m uch ti m e di scussing the i nsurer s’ d u ty to defe nd thes e cl ai m s be cause M cF a tr i dg e a nd Am e r i ca n Saf e ty ar e di rec tly on poi nt. Genera l l y, S tar ks’ s f al se ar re st and i m pri sonm en t cl ai m s i m plythathe was deta in ed w ith ou t le ga l p ro c es s. Wallace, 54 9 U.S
. at38 9. A s s u c h, “[t]h e fa lse im p ris on m en t e n d s , an d th e c laim acc rues wh en he i s hel d pu rs uant to a w ar ra nt o r othe r j ud i ci al l y i ssued pro cess . ” M cF at r i dge, 60 4 F. 3d at 344. H er e, S tar ks w as ar re ste d (p re sum abl y s ubj ect to an ar re st w ar ra n t, alt h o u gh th e re c or d on th is p oin t is unc l ea r ) a nd dul y c o nv i ct ed i n 1 98 6. To the e xt en t St ar ks’ s co m pla i nt m ake s o u t a f al se ar re st and i m pri sonm ent c l ai m , thato ffense accru ed s om eti m e in 198 6 p rior to h is c on vic tio n . Se ei d. Be ca us e ne i th erthe Nor th

f i el d no r the S t
. Pa ul F i r e po l i c i e s we r e i n e ffe c t i n 198 6, the insurer s hav e no duty t o defe nd ag ai nst these cl ai m s.

2. M al i ci ous Pr os e cu t i on, Wr ongf ul Convi ct i on, an d Deni al o f D ue P roc ess S tarks n ex t al l eg es tha t he was the v i ct i m o fmal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n, wro ng fulpr o se cut i o n, a nd a de ni alo fdue p roces s, a l l o fwhi chc o nt es t th e f ai r ne ss o fhi s pr o se cutio n . See B roo ks v. R o ss , 578 F.3d 574 , 57 9 (7th C ir. 2009). To s uccee d o n s uchc l ai m s, S ta r k s m us t pr o ve tha t he w as ex on er at ed ; un til th en , he h as n o c laim

. A m . Safe ty, 67 8 F .3d at47 8. W ith th at in m in d , w e h e ld in10 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 M cF at r i dgea nd A m er ican Sa fe tythatthe tr i gge r date f ora m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m o ccurs o n the d ay o f ex on er at ion
. See A m . Safety, 678 F. 3d at 478 ( “[ U ] nd er I l l i no i s l a w, the i s s ue r o f the po l i c y i n f o r c e o n the da t e a c o nv i c ti s e xo ne r a t e d mus tde fe nd a nd i nd e mni fy an i ns ur ed whose l aw- en f o r ce m en t per so nne l v i o l at e th e Consti tuti on ( orst ate l aw ) in th e pr oce ss ofse curi ng a crim inal conviction

. ”). He r e , th e d i s t r i c t co u r tw a s p r e s e n t e d w i th a c o mpla i nt thatco ntai ns sl i ght inconsi ste nci es as to the date of e x on er at ion . Sta rk s in itia lly alle ge s t h at th e Illino is A pp el l ate Courtr eve rs ed hi s co nvi cti on o n M ar ch 23, 2006 , ( St ar ks Com pl. at5) , al though th at cour t di d not issue the r el at ed m an dat e r etur ni ngj ur i sdi ct i o n t o the tr ial c ou rtu n til Jan u ar y 2 0, 20 07 . ( Id. a t 6 ). M om en ta rily ign or i ng the i m port ance ofei therdate, bo th o fthes e alle g a t i o n s im p ly th at Sta rk s w as fu lly ex on er at ed foll owing acti on bythe I llin ois A pp el l ate Court
. A l ternati vel y, the com pla i nt al l ege s that the st at e’s att or ney s o ughtt o r e - pr o s e c ut e S t a r k s e v e n a ft e r th e I l l i no i s App e llat e C ou rtov er tu rn ed h is c on vic tio n . ( Id. at6; n .1.) Th is al l ega ti on, o fco urse , sugg est s that nei theract i on by the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court exoner ate d Sta rk s, w h ich m ea n s t h at h is m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n c laim h a s n o t y et rip en ed

. SeeAm
. Safe ty, 6 7 8 F
. 3 d a t4 7 8. N ot w ith st an d in g t h at inc on sis te n c y, w e c an d efin itiv ely s a y tha t S t a r k s ’ s mal i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n ( a nd r el a t e d) alle ga tio n s d o n ottrig ge r th e t w o N or th field p olic i e s in effect f ro m N ove m ber1, 19 91, to N ove m ber1, 19 95. Because S tar ks w as not exonerate d du ring tha t pol i cy per i o d, Nor thfi el d ha s no duty t o de fen d hi s m al i ci o us pros ecuti on cl ai m s.N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 11 That l eave s us w i th the S t. P au l Fi re pol i cy, effecti ve N ovem ber 1, 2006 , to N ovem ber 1, 2009
. B ecau se w e a re ch ar g ed wi thl ibe r al l y c o ns trui ngthe c o m pl ainta nd po l i cyi n f av o r o fthe a ppel l ants, w e wi l l e va l ua te the tw o dive rg ent l i nes o fal l ega ti ons i n St ar ks’ s co m pla i nt, w h ile gr an tin g a ll rea s o n ab le in fer en c es to th e a p p ell an ts
. W e ta k e th e ea sys tr ain fi r sta nd a ss um e as t r ue the a l l e g a t i o n tha tS t a r k s h a s n o ty e tb e e n e xo ne r a t e d. I ftr ue, then St ar ks’ s cl ai m f or m alici ous pr ose cuti on has no t r i pened. I n other w or ds, S tar ks w as not ex o ne r at ed du ring S t. Pa ulF i r e’ s po l i cype r i o d, a nd thus, the i nsurerhas no duty t o defen d in thi s s cenar i o. The oth er lin e o fal l ega ti ons sugge sts thatS tar ks w as full y e x one rated once the Il linois A p p ell ate C ou rt va c at ed h is c on vic ti o n . If t ru e, th e q u es tio n for u s is w hi ch date ap p li es: the date o fthe re ver salo r the date oft h e m andate. Thi s i s a l so a r el ati vel y e asyquesti on because the l aw i n I l l i noi s cl ear l y provi des that th e e ffecti ve d ate o fa n I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t dec i si o n i s th e d a t e o f j u d g me n t, n o t th e d a t e th e ma n d a t e wa s i s s ue d. PSL Re al ty Co. v. Gr ani t eInv. Co. , 42 7 N .E .2d 56 3, 57 0 (Ill. 1981) ( “The date ofthe i ssuance ofthe m andate doe s no t contr olth e effecti ve date o fthe appell ate co urt j ud gm en t.” ); H ick ey v . Riera , 774 N
. E
. 2d 1, 10 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2001). Thus , e v e n i f we we r e t o r e a d the c o mpl a i nt t o sugg est that St ar ks w as fully e xoner ate d, the e ffecti ve date o f tha te xo ne r a t i o n i s Mar c h 2 3 , 2 006, wh i c h f a l l s o ut s i de ofS t. PaulFi re ’ s co ver age . Thi s i s no t th e en d of t he di sc us si o n, ho wev er . One w eekbefor e o ra l argum ent in thi s a pp eal, the sta te tr i al cour t i ssued a nol l epros e q uio rderi n Star ks ’s cr i m i nal12 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729

ca se , whi che ffec ti ve l y t er m in at ed an y fur th erpr o se cuti on a gainst hi m . A t or al ar gum ent, the appell ants ar gued that the nol l e pros e q uii s no t a fi na l di spo si ti o n, a nd i nstea d, i t i s a pro cedure that re ver ts the m att erbac k t o the s am e co nd i ti on th at exi ste d bef or e the co m m encem ent o fthe prosec u tio n. In other w or ds, the appell ants re ad the nol l epros e q uio rderas r eve rt i ng the d ate o f ex o ne r at i o n b ac kt o J an ua r y 2 0, 2 00 7, th e dat e th e m an dat e was i ss ue d. W e ha ve a l r ea dy r ej ec te d the n ot ion th at t h e m an d at e is th e e ffec tiv e d at e o f d isp os iti on a nd thus, exo nera ti on. But eve n i fthatw ere no t th e ca se , the a ppel l an ts ha ve mis ch ar ac te r i ze d the effect ofa nol l epros e q ui . F orci vi l m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on m atters in Il lin o is , “a crim inal procee d ing ha s been term in ated i n favor of the acc us ed w he n a p rosecu tor for

m al l y abandons the proce edi ng vi a a nol l epros e q ui, unle ss the a b an d onm ent i s forr eas ons not i nd i cati ve of the innocence ofthe accused. ” Swi ckv. Li aut aud, 66 2 N
. E.2 d 1238, 12 42- 43 ( I l l

. 19 96)
. The Swi ck r ul e l e a ves two po ss ibi l i ti es fo r S ta r k s an d the a ppel l an ts
. I fthe pr o se cut i o n was aban d o ne d f o r r ea so ns o fS ta r k s’ s i nn o c en c e, th en M ay 15 , 201 2, is t h e t rig ge r d at e fo r h is m al i ci o us pr ose cut i o n c l ai m . On th e o th erha nd, i fthe pros ecuto rs dro pp ed St ar ks’ s ca se for som e r eas on not i nd icati ve ofi nnocence

— such as the unava i l abi l i ty of a k ey w i tness

— then the nol l epros e q uio rderwould not have t er m i na te d the pr o se cut i o n in S ta r k s’ s f avor, l eaving S tar ks yetto be exoner ate d. W e need not deci de w hetherthe nollepro seq u i or d er in t h is c as e is i nd i cative ofi nnocence because i n ei thersce nari o, the m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on o ccurr ence f al l s o utsi de of St
. PaulFi re ’ s pol i cy.N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 13 W e m ust a d dr es s o ne mor e i ss ue b efo r e ex ami ni ng St ar ks’ s fi nal al l ega ti on. Sp ec i fi cal l y, the i nsurer s invi te us t o r ec o ns i der ou r hol di ng s i n M cF a tridg e a nd Am e r i ca n Safetyby as se rt in g t h at th os e c as es in t e rp re tin g Illino is l a w c o nt r a di c tthe v a s tmaj o r i t y o fo the r j ur i s di c ti ons. A s we have al re ady r eco unted, tho se case s ho l d that th e t r i g ge r d at e fo r a m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im in Illino is is t h e d at e o f ex on er at ion
. S e eAm. S af ety, 67 8 F.3 d at47 8; M cF at r i dge, 6 0 4 F .3 d at 344. Bu t the overw h elm i ng m aj or i ty ofj uri sdic ti ons to add re ss th is issue con side r the trigger da te to b e the da te of th e un d erl y i n gc r i mi n a l c h a r g e s o r c o n v i ct i o n. A m . Safe ty, 67 8 F
. 3d at 47 9 (c olle c tin g c as es ). A lth ou gh w e a c kn ow led ge Il lino i s’ s m i nori ty s ta tu s, we ha ve r ec en tly f o und tha t th e on e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rtop in ion o n p oin t p lain ly hol ds that the t ri gge r date fora m al i ci ous pr osecuti on c laim is th e d at e o f ex on er at ion
. Id. at47 8- 79 ( ci t i ng Se c. M ut
. Cas
. Co. v. Har b orIns . Co. , 3 8 2 N. E. 2 d 1 ( I l l

. App
. C t. 19 78 ), r e v’ d on ot he rgroun ds , 3 97 N
. E
. 2d 839 (I ll

. 1979)). A s a federa l co urt i nter preting I l l i nois law , we are not en tit led to sin gle h a n d ed ly m od ify th e Illino is ru le w ithou t som e new direction from the sta te. M o r e o ver, w e fully a nal yze d the I l l i noi s r ule and the m aj or i ty r ul e i n Am e r i ca n S af e ty no t m o r e th ana few months ago , and w e see n o n eed to r epeat that disc ussi on h e r e . S u ffi c e i tt o s a y, we decl i ne t o d i s r u p to u r o wn p r e c ed en t o r th at of th e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rt, see Blood v. VH

- 1 M us i c First , 6 68 F.3d 54 3, 546 (7th Cir. 2 0 1 2 ) ( pe r mi t t i ngfe de r a l c o urts t o g i v e “ pr o pe r r e g a r d” to th e s t a t e ’ s l o we r c o u r t s )
. Ac c o r d i n g l y, we a p p l y t he I llin oi s t ri gge r rul e forci vi l cl ai m s o fm al i ci ous pr osec ut i o n.14 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 3. Inten tio na l Inflicti o n o f E m o tio na l D istress Fi nal l y, Sta rks s ugges ts that he pl ans t o bring an I I ED cl ai m if and w hen he i s fully e xoner ate d. Because I l l i noi s r equi re s a n i nsurerto defend al l cl ai m s that ar e p ot en tia lly w ith inco ve ra ge , Wi l ki n Ins ulation Co. , 57 8 N
. E.2 d at 9 30, we assum e that S tar ks w i l l ev en tu ally bring thi s cl ai m . That s aid , we m ust e xam i ne a potenti al I I ED cl ai m t o de te r m i ne whethe r i t occ ur r ed dur i ng the pol i cy peri ods. Gen er al l y, “ th e finale l emento fthe t o r t m ar k s th e oc c u rre n c e” or tr igg er d at e, A m . Safe ty, 67 8 F
. 3d at4 80 , a nd I I ED cl ai m s a re no differ ent. But her e, the a pp el l ants ch an g e co ur se a nd a r g ue tha t th e inj ur i es s te m m i ng fro m t h e IIE D are co n tin u ou s, an d th u s, w e s h ou ld ap p ly a co n tin u ou s trig ge r to th at p ot en tia l cla im
. See B el le vill e Toyo ta, Inc. v . To y ota M otor Sales, U
. S.A., Inc. , 77 0 N
. E.2 d 177, 19 0 ( I l l

. 20 02) ( “[ W ] here a tor t invol ves a continuing orr epeate d i nj ury, the l i m i tat i ons peri od doe s no t b e g i n t o r un un t i l the da t e o f the l a s ti nj ury or the da t e the t o r t i o us a c t s c e a s e . ” )
. T hu s , u nd e r the a ppel l ants’ co nti nuous-t ri gge r theo ry, a n y inj uri es St ar ks su ffer ed f r o m the I I ED po te nt i al l y tri ggerb o thNor th

fi el d’s and St. PaulFi re ’ s pol i ci es. W e di sag re e. The appell ants confl ate co nti nuing harm ful acts with th e co nt i nui nge ffec ts o fo ne ha r m fula ct
. “A co nt i nui ng vi o l at i on or t o r t i s o cc as i o ne d b y c o nt i nui ngunl awful acts and conduct, notbyco nt inual i l l effects fro m an i ni ti alvi ol ati on .” F e l t m eier v. Feltm eier, 79 8 N
. E.2 d 75, 85 ( I l l

. 20 03)
. To di ffer entiat e these co ncepts, I l l i noi s co urts m ust dete rm i ne wh et her a “ si ngl e o ver t a ct” i s the causeN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 15

o fs ubs eque ntda m ag es o r whethe r the a cc us ed co ntin u ally p er p et ra te d h ar m fu l ac ts
. Id. Inth is c as e, St ar ks ’s c om p lain t a lleg es p ot en tia lly outr ag eous conduct co m m i tte d by pro secuto rs , pol i ce offi cer s, and cr i m e-lab techni ci ans, duri ng hi s 1 986 tr i ala nd the p r epa r at i o n f o r tha t tr i al

. The c o m pl aint does not al l ege thatS tar ks f ac ed o u tr age ous c onduct at an y ot h er tim e. A c c or d in g l y, w h et h er it is u ltim at ely det er m i ne d tha t Star k s’ I I ED cl ai m a cc r ue d whenhe w as ind ict ed or w h en h e w as ex on er at ed , his cla im st i l l o cc ur r ed o ut si de th e sc o pe o fb o thNor th fi el d’ s an d St
. PaulFi re ’ s pol i ci es, and nei theri nsure r is l i abl e. C o mpareBr ooks , 57 8 F
. 3d at 579 ( I l l i noi s IIE D cl ai m bas ed on alleg at ion s r el ate d to f ai rnes s o fpro secuti on accr ued w hen pla i nti ffwas i nd i cted, notwh en he w as ac q u itt ed ), w ith P a rish v . City of E lkha rt, 61 4 F
. 3d 677, 68 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( und erInd i ana l aw , I I ED c laim w as not com ple ted pri or t o convi cti on a nd would have im p ug ne d p lai nt iffs’ con viction u nd er He ckv H um phrey, 512 U
. S
. 4 77( 19 94 ) , s o c l ai m a cc r ue d upo n pl aint i ff’ s ex on er at ion ), and Li e b e r m an v. Li b e r ty Heal t hc a reCorp. , 948 N
. E.2 d 1100, 11 07- 08 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct . 2 011) ( und er I ll inois l aw , rule of He ckv. H um phrey a p p l i e s t o c l a i ms f orm edi calo r l ega l m al pract i ce t hat di re ctl y a tta ck legali ty of p lai nt iff’ s con fi ne m en t).

B. M ot i on t o S t ay Proc e e di ngs The appell ants next cl ai m thatthe dist ri ct c ou rter re d by re fusi ng to st ay the decl ar ato ryj ud gm en t pr oceedi ngs un til St ar ks’ s cr i m i nal cas e e nd ed. The Decl ar a-16 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 tory J ud gm ent Act by i ts own te rm s g ra nts d ist ric t co urts disc re ti on in deter m i ni ng wh etherto ente rt ai n s u c h an acti on. 28 U .S.C . § 22 01( a) ( provi ding that the di str i ct cour t “ m ayde cl ar e th e r i g ht s an d othe r l eg alr el at i o ns o fan y i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y s e e k i n gs u c h d e c l a r a t i o n ” ( e mphasi s a dd ed))

. N atur al l y, we re view a denia l to st ay pr o ce eding s f o r a n abu se ofdi sc r et i o n. See Envi s i on He al t hc are, Inc . v. Pr e

f e r r e dO neIns . Co. , 604 F
. 3d 983, 98 5- 86 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) ( “[ A] di st r i ctc o ur t i s au th o r i ze d, i n the sou n d exerc i se ofi ts disc re ti on, to st ay orto di sm i ss an a c t i ons e e k i nga de c l a r a t o r y j ud g men t
. ” )
. He r e , the a ppel l an ts make a ha ndfulo fa r g um en ts f au l tingthe dist ri ct c ourtf orr efusi ng to gr ant i ts m oti on t o sta y proce edi ngs, none ofwh i ch w e fi nd per suasi ve. Pri nci pal l y, the appel l ants cl ai m thatther e a re to o m an y un cer t a in fut ure even ts to all ow the d istri ct cou rt to effecti vel y a dj ud i cate the i nsurer s’ obl i gat i ons. But, as our pr ec edi ng anal ysi s o fS tar ks’ s co m pla i nt sugg est s, we d i s a g r e e . T h e co mp l a i n ts e t s f o r th s p e c i fi c c l a i ms f o r f a l s e a r r e s ta n d i mpr i s o n me n ta n d th e v ar i o us cl ai m s form al i ci ous pr ose c u ti on. S tar ks al so i nti m ate s that he i ntends to br i ng an I I ED c laim

. A l l o ftho se cl ai m s ha ve di sc r et e tr i g g erpo i nt s th ata l l o wed the dist ri ct c ourtto deter m in e w hetherthe i nsurer s hav e a d ut y to d efend

. A nd no fut ure action s, save Sta rks’s exoner ati on

— whi c h b r i ng s h i s c l a i m e v e n f a r ther outsi de ofthe i nsurer s’ pol ici es

— change that anal ysi s. A ny de l ayi n a dj udi ca tingthe i ns ur er s’ duty t o de fen d c os ts th e ins u re rs m u c h -n ee d ed ce rt ain ty
. SeeAm
. Safe ty, 678 F. 3d at 480 ( A l ong tailo fi nsurance cove ra ge affects in su re rs ’ ab ility to ad j u st p ric es to refle c t p re vio u slyN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 17 incu rred ri sk.)

. Th us , w e f in d th at th e d istri ct cou rt rig h tly ex er c ise d its d isc re tio nin d en yin g t h e ap p ell ants’ m oti on t o sta y. T he a p pel l an ts a l so po i nto uttha t th eys en t th e i ns ur er s a l et te r pr o po singtha t th e parties fi l e a j o i nt m ot ion to st ay p ro c ee d in gs . A p p ar en tly , th is let te r is evi dence ofthe ap p el l ants’ wil l i ngness to backaway f ro m thei r i m m edi ate dem and fo r c overa ge and a defense. A nd w ithout a dem and fo r cove ra ge, the distr i ct co ur t ha s no l i ve co nt r o ve r sy to adj udi ca te. The appe l l an ts ha ve mis ch ar ac te r i ze d the c o nt en ts o fthe l e t t e r . In fac t, th is let te r n ev er su gg es ts th at th e a p p ell ants i ntend to w i thdraw thei r dem and forco ver age . R at h er , th e le tt er sim p ly re q u es te d th at b ot h p ar tie s file a j oi nt m oti on t o s ta y th e proce edi ngs. A s l ong as a l i ve con trove r s y ex ists betw een the p arties, the d istri ct cou rt ha s di s c r e t i o n t o de c l a r e the r i g ht s o fthe p a r t i e s . 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 201( a); see als o Ci nc i nna t iCos
. v. W
. Am
. Ins . Co. , 70 1 N
. E.2 d 4 9 9 , 5 0 4 ( I l l

. 1 9 9 8 ) ( “ I f, a ft e r b e i ngc o nt a c t e d, th e insu red i nd icates th at it d esires the insu rer’s assistan ce, then the insu rer’s du ty to d efend cont inu es.”). Finally, the ap p ell an ts a r g ue that the d istri ct cou rt m ust hav e abused i ts disc re ti on be c au se tw o othe r cour ts f aci ng the sa m e un derl yi ng ci vi l co m pla i nt st aye d proce edi ngs pendi ng the r eso l uti on o f S tarks ’ s cr i m i nal case . A t the thr esho l d , we have al re ady acknow l edged th atdi st r i ctc o ur ts hav e wi de di sc r et i o n in a dj udi ca ting declar at ory j ud gm ent a cti ons and m oti ons to sta y pr oceed in gs . I t i s no sur pri se that dist ri ct j ud ges ve ste d w i th thi s di scr eti on m ay c om e t o differ ent c oncl usi ons.18 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 M ore tha n th at, the tw o c a s e s the ap p ell an ts cite are i napp osi te. For exam ple , J ud ge K oco ra s gr anted a sta y i n TIG Ins . Co. v. Ci ty of Waukegan , No
. 1 0

- c v - 1 4 6 6 ( N. D. I l l

. A pr. 28 , 20 10) , pre sum abl y b ecause TI G I nsurance w as on r i sk f ro m N ove m ber1, 19 85, to N ove m ber1, 19 87. O ur p reced ing trigger analysis sug g e sts th at Starks’s cl ai m f orf al se i m pri sonm ent m ay have ri pened in 1986, potenti al l y i m pli cating TI G’s du ty to defe nd . S i m i l ar l y, J udg e Get tl eman st ay ed th e pr o ce eding s i n Westpo rt Ins . Co. v. City of

Waukegan , N o. 10- cv- 263 ( N
. D. I l l

. A pr. 28 , 2010 )
. U nl i ke thi s ca se, t h e i nsurerther e was o n ri sk und ernum er ous pol i ci es st re tchi ng fro m N ove m ber1, 1 9 8 7, t o N o v e mb e r 1 , 20 0 0
. G i v e n th e g r e a t e r c o mp lexity, i t again is no surp rise that th e d istri ct cou rt i n tha tcas e exe r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i o n t o s t a y the p r o c e e di ngs. The l ar ger point, however, i s that di str i ct c ourt s m ai ntai n w id e d i scr eti on in adj ud i cating the se m att er s, an d e vi den ce o fc o nfl i ct i ngde ci si o ns wi th o uta ny th i ng m o r e i s no t ev i den ce tha t a j udg e abu sed th atdi sc r et i o n. Insu m , w e f i n d t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as w ell w ith in i ts disc re ti on in denyi ng the appel l ants’ m oti on t o sta y.
C
. D ecla rato ry R elief Fi nal l y, the appella n ts cl ai m thatJ ud ge N or gl e’ s declar at or y re lief or d er is ov erb ro ad be c au s e it su p p os ed ly preem pts “any and a l l i nsurance cove ra ge. ” In other w or ds, the appell ants cl ai m thatJ ud ge N or gl e’ s o rder prohibi ts all futur e cl ai m s th atmay ha ve a r i se n dur i ng the pol i c y p e r i o d, n o tj us ttho s e i n S t a r k s ’ s c o mpl a i nt
. T his argu m en t m isun d erstan d s Ju d ge N orgle’ s orde r.N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 19 Inh is or d er for d ec lar at or y re lief, Ju d ge N o r lge p lain ly sta tes , “ P lain tiff s . . . o w e no duty t o defe nd o r i nd e mn i fy D e fe n d a n t s . . . c o n c e r n i n gc l a i ms ma de agains t the m i n th e case of St ark s v. Ci ty of Waukegan , N o. 09

- CV

- 348 ( N
. D. I l l

. fi l ed J an. 20 , 20 09)
. ” I n st ead of l i m i ting a l l pote nti alcl ai m s, as the appell ants sugge st, J udge Nor g l e’ s o r ders i m pl y pr ec l ude s co ve r ag e o fthe cl ai m s S tar ks m ade i n hi s 2 009 ci vi l sui t.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe for ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r of N or thfi el d and St. PaulFi re .

H A MI L T ON, Ci r c u i tJu dge, c o nc ur r i ng . Ij o i n the c ou rt ’s o p in ion, w h ich ac c u ra te ly a p p lies th e a va ilab le pr ec ede nt s o fo urc o ur t an d the I l l i no i s co ur ts t o the questi ons bef or e u s. I w ri te separ ate l y t o m ake two ob

se rvati ons: o ne o n the hand l i ng o fthe St ar ks case i n pa r ti cul ara nd anoth er o n the ha ndl i ngo fwro ng ful c on vic tio n cla im s in ge n er al. First, w e hav e been told th at tw o ad d iti ona l c a s es are p e n d i n gi n th e No r th e r n D i s t r i c to fI l l i n o i s c o n c e r ni ng20 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 the Ci ty ofW aukeg an’ s l iab il i ty i nsurance cove ra ge for th e w ro n gfu l c on vic tio n c laim s ass er te d b y B en n ie St ar ks. The o thercas es i nvolve o theri nsurer s with p oli cies covering d ifferent tim e pe riods going ba ck m ore th ant wenty y ea r s. The c as es ha ve b ee n s ta y ed pen di ng prog re ss i n Star ks’ cr i m i nal cas e, but that case i s no w r e s o l v e d a nd p r e s uma b l y the s t a y s wi l l s o o n b e l i ft e d. Forthe re aso ns expl ai ned i n J ud ge K anne’ s o pini on f or th e c ou rt, Iam c o n f i d e n t t h at th e t w o in su re rs in t h is case ar e no t r equire d t o defe nd o r i nd em ni fy the ci ty a g a i ns tthe s e c l a i m s . As l o nga s the c i t y h a s k e pt liab ility ins u ra n c e in p lac e o ve r th e d e c a d es , th ou gh , i t i s hi g hl y l i k ely that t he c ity i s en ti tl ed to a de fen se a nd ind em nity from at l east on e i n s u rer, perh ap s from m ore than o ne. Ir es pec t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s br oad d i sc r et i o n in managing r el ate d cases , but kee ping separ ate thes e ca ses con testin g i ns ura nc e coverag e for th e very sam e un d erl yi ng cl ai m s s eem s t o b e a n i nvi tat i on f ordup l i cati ve litig at ion an d inc on sis te n t r e s u l t s . T h e c ity is ina p os iti o n tha t i s th e m irr or i m ag e o fa n int er pl ea derpl aintiff

— rat h er th an h av in g m on ey or p ro p er ty th at it k n o ws i ts h o u l d p a y t o s o me o n e i n a g r o u p o fc o mp et in g c laim an ts , th e c i t y k n ow s t h at it sh ou ld be p aid by som eon e am ong the va rious insu rers. T he i ns ure rs shoul d res ol ve the c overa ge i ssues am ong them sel ves. I fa nd wh e n the s t a y e d c a s es com e b a c kt o l i fe , Ih o pe th e d ist ric t jud ge s w ill rec on sid er w h et h e r th ey sh ou ld re m ai n separ ate
. Se cond, ata m or e g ener all eve l, I n ote the com ple xi ty and confusi on ofthe re l ate d ti m i ng quest i ons

— que st i o nsN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 21 i ncl ud i ng r i peness, st atute s o fl i m i tat i ons, and i nsu ra n ce cove ra ge

— th a ta r e n e c e s s a r i l y r a i s e d b y th e c l a i ms br o ug htb y pe o ple li k e S ta r k s who ar e wro ng ful l y c o nvi cted and spend yea rs i n pri son. I ssues r el ating to ti m i ngus ua l l y f o cus o n e i th erthe b eg i nni ngo fthe c rim in al p ro c e s s o r t h e e n d . W as th e c laim rip e a n d d id th e s t a t u t e - o f

- l i mi t a t i o n s c l o c kb e g i n t o r u n a tth e t i me ofthe w ro ngful convi cti on a nd r el ate d events ? Or w as the c l ai m r i pe an d d i d the s tatute- of

- l i m i tat i ons cl ock begin to r un onl y when the wrongful convic ti on was setas i de? W i th ei ther answ er, ther e can be a devi l i n the de tail s. I fthe f o c u s i s o n th e b e g i n n i n go fth e p r o c e s s , d o we foc u s on the date o fwrongful conduct by l aw enf or cem ent, the date o fco nvi cti on, the date o faffi rm ance o n dir ec t appeal, o r othe r eve nts? ( A nyone w ho wants to se e how tr i ckyev en the l asttwo poss ibi l i ti es c an be sh o ul d s tu dy th e ext en siv e fede r alc as e l aw o n whe n the one- yea r cl ockf orfi l i ng a federa l habea s co rp u s peti ti on ru n s un d er 28 U .S.C
. § 22 44 (d ). S ee , e . g. , Ev ans v. Ch avis , 54 6 U .S. 18 9 (2 00 6); C arey v. Saffold, 5 36 U .S. 2 14 (20 02 ).) I f the f o c us i s o n the e xo ne r a t i o n e nd ofthe p r o c e s s , do we f o c us o n the d ate th a ta c o nv i c t i o n i s fi r s tv a c a t e d, t h e d a t e th at a cou rt i ssu es its m an d ate, or, i n ca se of a re m and o r w ri t of habeas cor pu s al l owing a new tria l, w hen the re opened proc eedings ar e co ncl ud ed i n f avo r o fthe a c c us e d? There i s pl enty ofr oo m f orcon fu sion and m utual i nc o ns istenc y i n the way s co ur ts ha ndl e th es e di ffer en t ti m i ng i ssues i n these wrongful convi cti on ca ses , notto m en tio n m alle ab ility of ar gu m en ts an d ou tc om es . In22 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729

an y p ar tic u lar ca se , cu rre n t Illino is law allow s c ap ab le co uns el to m ak e ar g um en ts to j us ti fy ne ar l y an y r es o l uti on that would b en efi t thei r cl i ent

— whethe r the c l i en t i s the wrongfully c onvi cted pl ai nti ff, the gov er nm ent, or th e in s u r e r . O n ly th e Illino is c ou rt s c an u n ta n gle these k n ots to pro vi de j usti ce, co nsi ste ncy, and predi ctab i l i ty
. F o r exa m pl e, the c i tyhe r e su g g es te d a t o r ala r g um en t th atth e st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns mightha ve r un o n S ta r k s’ c l ai m s be f o r e he c o uld evenb r i ngthe m . The convo l uted theo ryse em s t o be that S tar ks w as actuall y exoner ate d back i n 200 7 when the I l l i nois A pp el l ate Court i ssued it s m andate, but that hi s cl ai m s di d not ac cr ue unt i l the c r i m i na l pr o se cut i o n e nde d wi ththe 2012 nol l epros e q ui
. U nd erthis t heor y, the 2012 nolle p ro se qui so m eh o w re tr o ac ti ve l y s ta r te d the s ta tu te
- o flim ita tio n s c loc k ru n n in g b ac k in 20 07, effec tiv ely bar ring Star ks’ cl ai m s be f or e they a ccr ued and coul d be bro ught. The f act that such an arg u m ent c oul d be m ade with a st ra i ght f ace i s a sy m ptom o fa need f or cl ar i fi cati on o fI l l i noi s l aw o n thes e t i m i ng i ssues . The ar gum ent a l so hi ghl i ghts a r el ate d poi nt

— the ch a l l e ng e o ffi g ur i ngo utthe s c o pe o fa n i ns ur e r ’ s duty to defe n d cl ai m s in w hi ch the pla i nti ff s a nd defendants in the un d erlyi ng clai m s try to cop e w ith th e un certainty. Even i fthe pla i nti ff in the underl yi ng ca se brings a c l a i m tha t i s c l e a r l y no t y e t r i pe o r i s c l e a r l y b a r r e d b y the s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons, a n in sure r m ay sti l l have a du t y t o de fe nd i t s i ns ur e d a g a i ns t the c l a i m. S ee V a lley F o rg e Ins
. Co
. v. Swiders ki Elect ronics, Inc. , 86 0 N
. E.2 d 307, 31 5 ( I l l

. 2 00 6) ( i ns ur eri s o bl i g at ed to de fen d “ ev eni fthe al l ega ti ons ar e g ro und l ess , f al se, o r fra ud ule nt, and eve n if on ly on e o f se ve ra l th eo rie s of re c ov er y a lleg ed inN os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 23 the c om pla i nt f al l s with in the potenti alco ver age o f th e po li cy”). T h e choi ce b etween i m posi ng the duty t o defe nd o n the in sure r at the t i m e o fthe or i gi nal pro secuti on an d c o nv i ct i o n a nd the i ns ur era t th e ti m e o f th e la te r e xo ne r at i o n i s a di ffi cul t o ne . In Nat i o n a l C a s u a l tyC o . v. M cF at r i dge, 6 0 4 F
. 3 d 3 3 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a nd A m e r i ca n Saf e ty Cas ual ty Ins . Co. v. C i ty of Waukegan , 67 8 F
. 3d 475 (7th C ir. 2012), w e held that the trigger da te for a m ali ci o us pr o se cut i o n c l ai m unde r I l l i no i s l aw was the d ay ofe xo ne r at i o n. ( Thi s ca se s ho ws tha t “e xo ne r at i o n” can be a r a the r s l i pp e r y c o nc e pt, b utIwi l l l e a v e tho se nua nc es a si de f o r no w. ) I fthe t rigger dat e i s th e or i gi nal co nvi cti on, then the insurerfro m that ti m e f aces a dec ade s- l o ngl i ab i l i ty“ ta i l

. ” I fthe t r i g g erda te i s th e day o ffi nal o ffi ci alexo nera ti on, then i nsurabi l i ty can bec om e a serious p roble m becau se of the p rosp ect of a “kno w n l oss . ” The ci ty se eking i nsurance m ay be abl e t o see l oo m i ng l i abilit y w el l i n advance, and an i nsurer m ay be abl e to dem and di scl osur es about pend i ng ca ses. Suppose the Ci ty ofW aukeg an tr i ed to buy l i abi l i ty i nsurance f orthe St ar ks case after th e D N A te sts thatl ed to St ar ks’ exo nera tio n, o r eve n afterthe M ar ch 23, 20 06 a pp e l l a t e o pi ni o n ha d b e e n i s s ue d. S ee Peop l ev. St arks , 850 N
. E
. 2d 206, 211 (I ll

. A p p . 2006). U nd er M cF atridge a nd A m er ican Safe ty, i ns ur e r s fr o m e a r l i e r p e r i o ds p ro b ab ly w ou ld be off th e h oo k. B u t if t h er e w er e fu ll di sc l osu re o fr el ev an t f ac ts a fte r the DNA t es t o r the appe l l at e o pi ni o n, the n ins ur an ce f o r a c as e l i k e th e S ta r k s ca se c o ul d b e pr o hibi ti ve l y e xp en siv e an d e ss en tia lly n otav aila b le a t a ll.24 N os. 11

- 1215 & 11

- 3729 The i n su re rs her e hav e invi ted us t o re consi der M c Fa tridg e a nd National Ca sualty . T h e r e a r e g o o d r e a s o ns w hy w e shou ld n ot. O ur op inions in thos e cases are c on sis te n t w ith th e re lev an t Illino is p re c ed en t, an d th is i s a qu e s t i o n o f s t a t e l a w. I f the r ul e we a do pt e d i n thos e ca se s ne eds to be r ec o ns i der ed, i t sh o ul d b e do ne b y the I l l i no i s c o ur t s . Ifthe I l l i no i s c o ur t s do r e c o ns i de r, Ih o pe they w i l l do s o w i th an eye to w ar d the fullr ange of i ssues thatcan ar i se in these c ase s, i ncl ud i ng He ckv. H um ph rey, 512 U
. S. 477 (1 9 94), and I l l i noi s’ s e m bra ce o ftha t r ul e i n Li e b e r m an v. Li b e r ty Heal t hc areCorp. , 948 N
. E.2 d 1100, 1 10 7- 08 ( I l l

. A pp . 20 11) , as wellas r i peness, st atute s o fl i m i tat i ons, and the i ns u ra n c e co ver age i ssues .

11- 21- 12