Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Hastings Mutual Insurance Co. v. Blinderman Construction Co.,

2017 IL App (1st) 162234

Appellate Court 

Caption

HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BLINDERMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

and THE ESTATE OF ROBERT WOODS by Cynthia Sosnowski of

the Estate and Person of Robert Woods, Defendants (Blinderman

Construction Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellant).

District & No. First District, Second Division 

Docket No. 1-16-2234

Filed October 24, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 14-CH-19115; the 

Hon. Franklin U. Valderrama, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded.

Counsel on

Appeal

Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert, of Chicago (Brian A. 

O’Gallagher and Margaret Domanski, of counsel), for appellant.

Mulherin, Rehfeldt & Varchetto, of Wheaton (Ray H. Rittenhouse, of 

counsel), for appellee.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of the 

court, with opinion.

Justices Hyman and Mason concurred in the judgment and opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 This case raises the question of whether a subcontractor’s insurer has a duty to defend the 

general contractor, an additional insured under its policy, in a lawsuit brought by an injured 

employee of the subcontractor. In the underlying lawsuit, the Estate of Robert Woods, the 

injured employee of the subcontractor, JM Polcurr, Inc. (Polcurr), sued the general contractor, 

Blinderman Construction Company, Inc. (Blinderman), for negligence. The complaint 

included no allegations about the acts of Polcurr. Polcurr’s insurer, Hastings Mutual Insurance 

Company (Hastings), filed a separate lawsuit for a judgment declaring that it had no duty to 

defend Blinderman in the underlying lawsuit. The circuit court granted a motion for summary 

judgment in favor of Hastings on its complaint. 

¶ 2 In this appeal, we hold that the absence of allegations about Polcurr in the underlying 

complaint does not suffice to meet Hastings’s burden of proving that the injury occurred 

through no fault of Polcurr. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further 

proceedings. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 The Public Building Commission of Chicago hired Blinderman to serve as general 

contractor for a construction project at Sauganash Elementary School. On June 22, 2010, 

Blinderman hired Polcurr to do the electrical work for the project. Blinderman’s contract with 

Polcurr required Polcurr to purchase insurance naming Blinderman as an additional insured for 

Polcurr’s work on the project. Polcurr purchased the required insurance from Hastings.

¶ 5 On July 19, 2011, Robert Woods suffered a severe injury at work on the project. He 

regained consciousness in the hospital about one month later. He has not worked since the 

accident. A court appointed Woods’s daughter, Cynthia Sosnowski, to serve as plenary 

guardian for Woods and Woods’s estate.

¶ 6 The Underlying Lawsuit: Estate of Woods v. Blinderman 

¶ 7 In February 2014, the Estate of Woods filed a complaint against Blinderman, alleging that 

Woods fell from a ladder while working at Sauganash for Polcurr. The estate alleged that 

Blinderman 

“a. Failed to provide a safe and suitable support and platform for the work;

 b. Failed to properly supervise, coordinate, inspect, manage, control and schedule 

the work; 

 c. Failed to provide a safe place of work; and 

 d. Failed to warn of the dangerous condition then and there existing, when 

Defendants knew, or should have known, that warning was necessary to avoid injury to 

Plaintiff.”

¶ 8 Blinderman tendered defense of the lawsuit to Hastings. Hastings rejected the tender, 

citing, as a basis for the rejection, the following clause in its insurance policy: 

“With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following 

exclusions apply: 

 ***
- 3 - 

 *** [L]iability arising out of the sole negligence of the additional insured or by 

those acting on behalf of the additional insured.”

¶ 9 Blinderman filed a third-party complaint against Polcurr, arguing that Polcurr should pay a 

share of any liability assessed against Blinderman because Polcurr failed to inspect the 

premises, improperly maintained Woods’s work area, failed to warn Woods of dangerous 

conditions, and permitted Woods to use an unstable ladder without appropriate safety 

equipment. 

¶ 10 Hastings’s Complaint

¶ 11 In November 2014, Hastings filed the complaint that initiated the case now on appeal. 

Hastings sought a judgment declaring that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Blinderman 

for its potential liability in Estate of Woods v. Blinderman. Blinderman and Hastings both filed 

motions for summary judgment in the declaratory judgment action. 

¶ 12 Blinderman supported its motion for summary judgment with its third-party complaint 

against Polcurr and depositions of two Polcurr employees. According to the employees, 

Blinderman gave no directions to Polcurr employees about their work. Polcurr employees, 

including Woods, used only Polcurr equipment. Blinderman had a safety program and a safety 

inspector at the worksite. At times, Blinderman’s inspector directed workers for the 

subcontractors to take specific measures for their safety. 

¶ 13 The circuit court held that the court could not consider the allegations of the third-party 

complaint when determining whether Hastings had a duty to defend Blinderman. The circuit 

court held that the exclusion for liability arising from Blinderman’s sole negligence applied, 

and Hastings had no duty to defend Blinderman because the underlying complaint did not 

allege or suggest that Polcurr acted negligently. Blinderman now appeals. 

¶ 14 ANALYSIS 

¶ 15 We review de novo the order granting Hastings’s motion for summary judgment. Travelers 

Insurance Co. v. Eljer Manufacturing, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 278, 292 (2001). Our supreme court set 

out the basic principles applicable here: 

“If the underlying complaints allege facts *** potentially within policy coverage, 

the insurer is obliged to defend its insured ***. An insurer may not justifiably refuse to 

defend an action against its insured unless it is clear from the face of the underlying 

complaints that the allegations fail to state facts which bring the case *** potentially 

within[ ] the policy’s coverage. ***

 The underlying complaints and the insurance policies must be liberally construed in 

favor of the insured. *** All doubts and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the 

insured.” (Emphases omitted.) United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilkin 

Insulation Co., 144 Ill. 2d 64, 73-74 (1991). 

See also Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90, 107-08 

(1992). 

¶ 16 The Wilkin court held that the insurer in that case had a duty to defend because the policy 

exclusions “d[id] not preclude potential coverage under the policy.” Wilkin, 144 Ill. 2d at 81. 

¶ 17 The circuit court here held that the policy exclusion for liability arising from Blinderman’s 

sole negligence established that Hastings had no duty to defend Blinderman. “[T]he insurer 
- 4 - 

bears the burden of establishing that a claim falls within a provision of the policy that limits or 

excludes coverage.” Old Second National Bank v. Indiana Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 

140265, ¶ 22; see Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453-54 (2009). Thus, 

Hastings had the burden of showing that Blinderman’s liability arose out of the sole negligence 

of Blinderman or those acting on Blinderman’s behalf and not from the negligent acts or 

omissions of Polcurr. 

¶ 18 The circuit court focused on the absence of allegations about Polcurr in the complaint the 

Estate of Woods filed against Blinderman. By adopting that focus, the circuit court ignored the 

context in which the Estate filed its complaint. In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Centex Homes, 2017 

IL App (1st) 153601, the court said: 

“[T]he allegations of the underlying complaint must be read with the understanding 

that the employer may be the negligent actor even where the complaint does not 

include allegations against that employer. [Citation.] 

 ***

 *** ‘[S]ilen[ce] as to any acts or omissions’ by the named insured must be 

understood as the possible result of tort immunity for employers under the workers’ 

compensation laws and should not be a basis for refusing to defend an additional 

insured.” Centex Homes, 2017 IL App (1st) 153601, ¶¶ 36-38 (quoting Ramara, Inc. v. 

Westfield Insurance Co., 814 F.3d 660, 677 (3d Cir. 2016)). 

¶ 19 The Estate of Woods in its complaint did not specifically allege that Polcurr’s acts or 

omissions caused the injury. But the estate did not expect to recover damages from Polcurr and 

had no reason to include allegations about the acts or omissions of Polcurr. The complaint’s 

silence concerning Polcurr’s acts or omissions does not suffice to meet Hastings’s burden of 

showing that Polcurr’s acts or omissions did not contribute to causing the injury.

¶ 20 Hastings cites Pekin Insurance Co. v. Roszak/ADC, LLC, 402 Ill. App. 3d 1055 (2010), for 

the proposition that “without any allegations in the complaint suggesting” that the 

subcontractor acted negligently and caused the injury, the subcontractor’s insurer had no duty 

to defend the general contractor. Roszak, 402 Ill. App. 3d at 1064; see American Country 

Insurance Co. v. Cline, 309 Ill. App. 3d 501, 512 (1999) (subcontractor’s insurer has no duty to 

defend additional insured where underlying complaint does not suggest that subcontractor’s 

negligent acts caused injury). In Roszak, the policy provided: 

“ ‘Who is An Additional Insured *** is amended to include as an insured any person or 

organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or 

organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or 

organization be added as an additional insured on your policy. Such person or 

organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability incurred solely as a 

result of some act or omission of the named insured and not for its own independent 

negligence or statutory violation.’ ” Roszak, 402 Ill. App. 3d at 1058. 

¶ 21 The additional insured in Roszak bore the burden of proving that the limiting language did 

not apply because the limiting language appeared in the coverage grant and not in a separate 

exclusionary clause. Because the limiting language the circuit court relied on here appeared in 

a separate exclusion, we have no basis for shifting the burden of proof from the insurer to the 

insured. The insurer must meet the burden of proving that its exclusions apply and preclude 

coverage. Addison Insurance, 232 Ill. 2d at 454. 
- 5 - 

¶ 22 We note that Blinderman’s third-party complaint against Polcurr includes allegations 

consistent with the Estate’s complaint, showing how Polcurr’s acts or omissions might have 

contributed to causing Woods’s injury. However, Blinderman would need to use those 

pleadings only if it bore the burden of proving that Polcurr’s acts or omissions might have 

contributed to causing Woods’s injury. Because the Estate’s complaints include no allegations 

about Polcurr’s acts or omissions, and Hastings has presented no evidence concerning 

Polcurr’s acts or omissions, Hastings has not met its burden of proving that Blinderman’s 

liability in the underlying case arose out of Blinderman’s “sole negligence.” Thus, we need not 

address Blinderman’s argument that the court should have considered the allegations of the 

third-party complaint Blinderman filed against Polcurr to help the court determine whether the 

injury resulted from the sole negligence of Blinderman. We also need not address 

Blinderman’s argument that Hastings knew true but unpleaded facts that showed Polcurr might 

owe Blinderman compensation for Polcurr’s role in causing the injury. We reverse the 

summary judgment entered in favor of Hastings and remand for proceedings in accord with 

this opinion. 

¶ 23 CONCLUSION 

¶ 24 In the underlying complaint that the Estate of Woods filed against Blinderman, the estate 

alleged that Woods sustained an injury while working for Polcurr but included no other 

allegations about Polcurr’s conduct. We hold that, because Polcurr’s insurer, Hastings, 

presented no evidence concerning Polcurr’s conduct, Hastings has not met its burden of 

proving that Polcurr’s conduct did not in any way contribute to causing the injury Woods 

sustained. Therefore, we reverse the judgment entered in favor of Hastings and remand for 

further proceedings in accord with this opinion. 

¶ 25 Reversed and remanded.