## 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 o. 09

- 1497 N ATI ONA L C ASU ALT Y C OMPAN Y, E TAL ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees, v.
M ICHAEL M. M C F AT R I DGE , E TAL ., D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:0 7-cv-02 05 6-HAB-DCB

—H aro ld A . Bak er, Judg e. A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 22, 2009

— D ECIDED A PRI L 28, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C h ief Judge, an d B AUER an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Pl ai nti ff s Nati onalCasual ty Com pany and Sco tts dale I nd em ni ty Com pany pro vid ed com m er ci alge nera l l i abi l i ty ( “CG L”) and l aw enf or cem e nt i ns ur a nc e t o Edg a r Co un t y, I l l i no i s , v i a a s e r i es of pol i ci es. I n 200 5, Gordon “ Rand y” S tei dl sued Ed gar County and it s for m er s ta te’s at torney, M i chael2 N o. 09

- 1497 M cFat ri dge f ordam age s s tem m in g fro m S tei dl’ s 1 986 convi cti on f orm urder, wh i ch a federa l co urt ove rturned i n 200 3. The d ist ric t co urt hel d that Nati onalCasual ty Com pany and Sco ttsdale I nd em ni ty Com pany have no o b l i g a t i o n t o de fe nd o r i nd e mni fy M c F a t r i dge o r th e c ou n ty u n d er fou r in s u ra n c e p olic ies iss u ed in 1989 , 19 97, 19 98 a n d 19 99. The co unty and M cFat ri dge a p p e a l a n d w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND I n 19 87, Stei d l w as con victed i n E d gar C ou nt y of m urd er. Eve ntual l y, S tei dl’ s a pp eal s e nter ed the federa l sy ste m under2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 4. I n J une 2 00 3, the di st r i ctc ou rt gr anted a w ri t o fhabea s co rpus bas ed on ineffectual counselatthe tr i aland sent enci ng i n the sta te cour t. St eid l su ed , un d er 2 8 U .S.C . § 19 83 an d Il lin ois law , a numbero fo ffi ci al s i nv o l ve d i n the pr o se cut i o n, i nc l udi ng I llin ois S tat e Po l i ce a nd Par i s pol i ce o ffi cer s who had i nvest i gat ed the m urders , and f or m erEdgar County St ate ’ s Attor ney M i chael M cFat ri dge, wh o w as i nvol ved i n th e in vest i gat i on a nd pro secuti on. S tei dl al so nam ed the County ofEdgar a s a defendant and necess ar y par ty. A c c or ding to the c om pla i nt, M cFat ri dge, i n coo perati on wit h Par i s pol i ce, fra m ed and f al sel y pr ose cuted S te i dl

. The c o m pl aints ay s th atM cF at r i dge c o er ce d a nd t hrea ten ed tw o key w itness es, ind uc ed them to testify f al sel y, and conce al ed num er ous pie c es ofexcul pator y e vi dence duri ng th e tri al

. S tei dl al so cl ai m s that thro ughout the post

- convi cti on pro ceedi ngs, ev en afterN o. 09

- 1497 3 M cFat ri dge l eft o ffi ce in 1 991, he c onti nued to co er ce w itn es se s, lied ab ou t t h e e vid en c e, an d en ga ge d in a p ub li city cam p aign d efend ing the tri al and Steidl’s co nv i ct i o n. St ei dl’ s suitseeks d am age s f orf al se ar re st, f al se i m pri so nm en t, mal i ci o us pr o se cut i o n, c o ns pi r ac y and int en ti onali nfl i cti on o fem oti onaldist ress. The co unty te nde r ed th e su i t to Nat i o na l a nd S co tt sda l e, beli evi ng i tse l fenti tl ed to a l ega l d efense and i nd em ni fi cati on und erea ch of f our i nsurance pol i ci es the c om panie s issued

. Th e ins u r e rs resp ond ed by fi li ng a dec laratory j ud gm ent a cti on, as ki ng the co urt to deter m i ne th at they had no duty t o defe nd o r i nd em ni fy the co u n ty und er any o fthe pol i ci es. There ar e four separ ate i nsurance pol i ci es at i ssue, ea ch in e ffect at a di ffer ent t i m e: A l aw enf or cem ent l i abi l i ty pol i cy i ssued byS cot tsdal e Insurance Com pa n y was i n e ffe c tfr o m M a y 2 5 , 1 9 8 9 , u nt i l May2 5 , 1 9 9 0
. I tn a med “County o fEdg ar S
. D.” as the i nsured. I n additi on, thr ee CG L pol i ci es

— t wo i s s u e d b y S c o t t s d a l e I n d e mn i t y C o mp a n y, a n d o n e i s s u e d b y N a t i o n a l Ca s u a l t y C o mpan y

— in su re d E d ga r C ou n ty from Ju ly 1 , 1 99 7, u n til J ul y 1 , 2 0 0 0
. Ea c h o fthe thr e e p o l i c i e s c o v e r e d a o ney e a r p e r i o d. Edgar County ar gued that the pol i ci es ar e a t l eas t am bi gu ou s about w hethertheypro vi de i t o r M cFat ri dge cove ra ge f or l i abi l i ty to St ei dl, and shoul d be r ead ag ai nst the dr after s, i n f avo r ofa d u ty t o defe nd

. The di str i ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe i nsurer s. Fi rs t, t h e cour t found no co ver age f orM cFat ri dge und erthe l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy i n effect fro m M ay 19894 N o. 09

- 1497 thro ugh M ay 1990 bec ause the s tat e’ s a tto rneywas not a “C las s C ” em p loy ee u n d er th at p olic y. In ad d itio n, w h ile i nd i cating tha t M cFat ri dge’ s co nd uct duri ng the post
con viction p roceed ings “su ggests the possibili ty of coverag e” under th e two CGL po l i ci es i n e ffec t i n 1 99 8 an d early 1999, th e cou rt p ointed out th at M cFat ridge left offi ce in 1991 . It h eld thatthe CG L pol i ci es did notco ver acts by f

or m eroffi ci al s o r e m pl o y ee s co m m i tt ed dur i ng the pol i cy peri od s; ther ef or e, M cFat ri dge was not an i nsured under a ny o fthe thre e CGL pol i ci es. Ed gar County appeal ed the dist ri ct cour t’s deci si on an d filed th is a p p ea l.

I I . DI S C US S I ON I n d ete rm i ni ng wh etherthe i nsurance com panie s m ust pro vi de f orm er Ed garCounty S tat e’ s Attor ney M i chaelM cFat ri dge with cove ra ge

— a l ega ldefense and/or i nd em ni ty

— f or l i abi l i ty ar i si ng f ro m St ei dl’s pros ecuti on and convi cti on, we l oo k to Illinoi s l aw , wh i ch the parti es ag re e g ov er n s t h is d isp u te
. C o nn . Indem . Co
. v. D E R Trav el Serv., Inc. , 32 8 F
. 3d 347, 34 9 ( 7th C ir. 2003)
. W e r evi ew the di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o f sum m ar y j ud gm ent de novo . D e l M ont eFre s h Pr oduc eN
. A. , Inc . v. Tr ansp. Ins . Co. , 50 0 F.3d 640 , 643 (7th C ir. 2007).

A. Dutyt o De f e nd A n insurer ’ s duty t o defe nd i ts i nsured i s br oaderthan i t s du t y to i nd e mni fy . I fani ns ur e r ha s no du t y t o de fe nd ,N o. 09

- 1497 5 i t has no du ty to i nd em ni fy. W e dete rm i ne wh etheran i ns ur er ha s a dut y to defen d b y e xa m i ni ngthe unde r l y i ng c om p lain t a n d t h e l a n gu ag e o f th e in su ra n c e p olic y. Gen
. Age nts Ins . Co. of

Am
. , Inc . v. M i dwe s tSp o rting Goods Co. , 828 N
. E.2 d 1092, 10 98 ( I l l

. 20 05)
. A n y d oubts as to w hetherparticu lar cl ai m s f al l withi n the pol i cy ar e r eso lve d in fa vo r of c ov er a g e. D el M onte Fre sh Produce, 50 0 F. 3d at 643
. S o i fthe “co m pla i nt as ser ts f acts withi n or potenti al l y withi n pol i cy cove ra ge, an i nsureri s obl i gat ed to defe nd i ts i nsured. ” G en. Agents , 82 8 N
. E.2 d at 1 098
. On the o the r ha nd , a n i ns ur e r may r e fus e t o de fe nd an ac tio n in w h i c h, from th e fa c e o f th e c om p lain t, th e a ll ega ti ons ar e cl earl y o utsi de the bounds ofthe pol i cy c ov er ag e. U
. S. Fi d. & G uar . Co. v. Wi l ki n Ins ul at i on Co. , 578 N
. E
. 2d 926, 930 (I ll

. 1991). E ach of th e four policies i n q ue stion p rovide d “occu rre nce” cove ra ge and nam e “ County ofEdgar” or“County ofE dga r S
. D. ” a s n a med i ns ur e ds

. Co v e r a g e de pe nd s o n w hetherthe part i cul arpol i cy conte m pla ted co ver age f orM cFat ri d ge orthe sta te’ s a tto rney ’ s o ffi ce, i fi t doe s, we a s kw h e th e r a n y o fth e a l l e g a t i o n s i n S t e i d l ’ s c o mpla i nt “o ccurr ed” duri ng the co ver age per i ods. The co u n ty ar gues that as sta te’ s a tto rney, M cFat ri dge w as an i nsured under the law enf or cem ent pol i cy i n effect f ro m M ay 1989 unti l M ay 1990
. Duri n g th at pol i cy peri od, the com pla i nt s ay s that M cFat ri dge m ade f al se pu bl i c st ate m ents about St ei dl’ s gu il t, co er ced w i tness es to pr ev en t th em f r o m r ecanti ngf al se t es ti m o ny a nd provi ded f abr i cate d evi den c e to the pos t- convi cti on cour t. A ccor ding to the c ou nty, S cot tsdal e has a du ty to6 N o. 09

- 1497

The c ounty’ s br i ef c i t es t o a “ publ i c offi c i al s l i abi l i t y c ove ra ge 1 f orm , ” A p p el lants’ Briefat 18; Ap p. at A- 114- 115, as s up port for t h i s co nte ntio n. B u t this f or m p lain ly ex clu d es an y d u ty to defen d aga i ns tM c Fat ri dge’ s c l ai m s . Itsa ys the i ns ur er“wi l l no t be obl i gat ed .

. . t o d ef en d any ‘ s ui t ’ i n c onn ec t i on with a ny
‘ claim ’ m ad e a g a i n st t he insu red

. . . [ f] or f alse ar rest, f alse i m pri s onm en t, . . . def am at i on . . . m al i c i ous p ro s ec ut i on or abu se ofproces s. ” A nearly i dentic al f orm i n the s am e poli cy e n t i t l e d, “L a w En f o r c e me n t Li a b i l i t y C o v e r a g e F o r m” also lists p erso ns w h o “ w ere” elected officials as insu red s, A pp . at A

- 94- 96. W e a dd res s the county’ s argum ent und er th i s c o v e r a g e f o r m. defen d b ec au se M cF at r i dge was an i ns ur ed unde r the law en for c em en t p olic y a n d is p ot en tia lly liab le f o r c o nduc t w ithin th e po l i cype r i o d. And, i n a ddi ti o n, e v e n tho ugh he l e fto ffi c e i n 1991 , the c o un t y c o nt e nd s that CG L pol i ci es i n effect f ro m m i d-19 97 unti l m i d-20 00 r equi r e S co tt sdal e an d Nat i o na l t o de fen d i t an d M cFat ri dge. I t cl ai m s that M cFat ridge i s a n i nsured unde r the thi r d CGL po l i cy be ca us e i t co nt ains a n e ndo r se m en t th atl ists “p er so ns who

. . . wer e . . . y o ur l aw full y e l ecte d .

. . o ffi ci al s” as c overe d und erthat pol i cy. A l ter nati vel y, the c ounty ar gues that M cFat ri dge

1 parti ci pated i n a l ong- runni ng co nspiracyto depri ve St eid l of a fa ir tr ial, th at be ga n w h en h e w as a p u b lic o f f i c i a l wi th E d g a r C o u n t y a n d c o n t i n u e d i n t o t he CGL po l i c y pe r i o ds

. Any c o nd uc t tha t o c c ur r e d a f ter M cF at r i dge l eft office w as the r efo r e par t o fa s i ng l e co nti nuing offense com m i tte d und erM cFatri dge’ s a uthor i ty as sta te’ s a tto rney . T h is at l eas t r ai ses an a m bi gui ty, acco rd i ng to the county, abo ut wh ethera f or m ero ffi ci alN o. 09

- 1497 7 i s a n i nsured under the C G L pol i ci es f orwrongful acts th at continued i nto the pol i cy peri od, bec ause the c ours e ofco nd uct be gan when he w as sta te’ s a tto rney . F i na l l y, the c o unty s ug g es ts tha t, r eg ar dl ess o fthe sta te’ s a tto rney ’ s s tatus as an insured, t h e I l l i noi s Loca l G o v e r n me n t a l a n d Go v e r n me n t a l E mp l o y e e s T o r tI mm unity A c t, 74 5 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 10 /9

- 102 ( 2006 ) , r equi re s it t o re im b u rs e t h e st at e’s at to rn ey for its liab ility . I f it is l i abl e foract s M cFat ri dge to ok d u rin g the pol i cy peri ods, the c ounty ar gues that the insurer s m ust p ro vid e a defe nse a nd i nd em ni ty. W e a dd re ss cove ra ge und er ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

1. Th e Law Enfor cemen tPol i cy— D uty t o Def e nd Bec au se the l aw en f o r ce m en t po l i cy was i n e ffec t dur i ng M cF a t r i dg e ’ s t e nu r e a s s t a t e ’ s a t t o r ne y a nd p r o v i des slig h tly d iffer en t c ov er ag e, w e d isc u ss it se p ar at ely f ro m the thre e CGL pol i ci es. Sco tts dale i ssued the law enfo rce m ent pol i cy, wh i ch was i n e ffec t f r o m M ay2 5, 1 98 9, unt i l M ay2 5, 1 99 0. The law en for c em en t p o licy req u ire d Sc ot ts d ale to p ay all sum s “ w hi ch the insu redshal l bec om e le ga l l y obl i gat ed to pay . . . because ofwrongful acts
. . . cause d by a n occur re nce and ar i si ng o ut o fth e p er f or m ance o f the insu red ’ s duti es to provi de l aw enf or cem en t.” A pp . at A

- 163 ( em phasi s add ed). U nd er that pol i cy, “in su re d

— m ea n s th e n a me d i n s u r e d a n d a l l fu l l o r p a r t
- t i me a nd al l a uxi l i ar y o r v o l unt ee r l aw e nforcem en t o ffi ce r s o fthe8 N o. 09

- 1497

nam ed i nsured. ” Ap p. at A

- 164. I t defi nes “ occur re nce” a s “an even t, includ ing con tinu ou s or repeat ed exp o s u re to condi ti ons, wh i ch r es u lts i n pers onali nj ury . . . susta in ed d u rin g t h e p olic y p er iod .” W e fi rs t a dd re ss w hetherthe law e nfo rce m ent pol i cy conte m p late d cove ra ge f orl i abi l i ty f orthe acts o f M cFat ri dge i n hi s r ol e a s s tat e’ s a tto rn ey . “County of Edga r S
. D
. ” i s th e na m ed i ns ur ed i n the po l i cy . The county defe nd ants ar gue that whether ornotC ou n ty of E d g a r S
. D
. r e fe r s t o th e s h e r i ff’ s d e pa r t me n ti s a mbi guous and so sh ou l d be r ead i n f avo r ofco ver age f or the County ofEdgar a s a wh ol e. H owever, an e nd or sem ent t o th e p ol i cy nam es “County o fEdgar, I L” as an add i tion al insured. The endor sem ent s peci fi es that County ofEdgar i s o nl y a n i nsured “with re spect[ ] to l i abi li tya r i singo uto fthe a ct i vi ti es o fthe na m ed i ns ur e d,” or Cou nty o fEd g a r S
. D. Lo o k i nga tthe “ ty pe o fi ns ur a nc e p ur c ha s e d, the n a t ur e o fthe r i s ki nv o l v e d, an d the ove ra l l purpose ofthe contr act, ” N i co r, Inc . v. A ss oc . Ele c. an d Gas Ins . Se r v. Lt d. , 860 N
. E.2 d 2 80, 28 6 (Ill. 20 06 ) , (in th i s ca se the pr o vi si o n o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t cove ra ge) , we thi nk the pol i cy cl ea rlyco ntem pla ted County ofEdgar S heri ff’ s Depart m ent as t he nam ed i nsured. The sher i ffis t h e county’ s m ai n l aw enf or cem ent o ffi ci al

. The co unty’ s co ntenti on that “C ou nty o f Ed gar S. D.” i s am bi guous beca u se i t couldm ean s om eth in g e lse d o e s n otm ak e itso . Se eVal l ey F orgeIns . Co. v. S w iders ki Elecs
. , Inc. , 8 6 0 N. E. 2 d 3 0 7, 3 1 4 ( I l l

. 2 007) ( i nt erna l c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed) ( te r m s ar e no t ambi g uo us “si m plyi fthe parti es can sugg estcr eat i ve possibi l i ti es f orthei r m ean in g” ). W e wil l notst ra i n to i nter pret aN o. 09

- 1497 9 parti cul arpro vi si on i n a way th at would r ender anothe r p ro vis ion m ea n in gle ss . Sh elto n v . An dres , 47 8 N
. E.2 d 311, 31 4 ( I l l

. 1 98 5)
. Rea di ng“Co unty ofEdg arS
. D. ” as a m bi g uou s a n d p ot en tia lly n am in g t h e c ou n t y a s a w h ole w ou ld re n d er th e e n d or se m en t n am in g C ou n ty of E d ga r its elf m eaningl ess . But i f, as we concl ud e, the sher i ff’ s depart

m ent is the nam ed i nsured, the endors em ent ne got i ate d by the par ti es and separa telyadded to the pol i cy has m eani ng. M o r eo ve r, the ot he r po l i ci es a t i ss ue , whi chno o ne disputes i nsure the county gov er nm ent i tse l f, l i st “County ofEdgar” as th e nam ed i nsured i nd i cating a dist i ncti on be twe enCGL ins ur an ce pr o vi ded to the c o unty g o ve r nm en t, a nd l aw e nf o r ce m en t co ve r ag e p ur ch as ed f o r the sher i ff’ s depart m ent. Fu rt h er u n d er c u t t i n g th e c ou n ty ’s a rg u m en t o n th is poi nt i s that the address o n the p olic y for“County of Edga r S
. D. ” i s di ffer en t f r o m tha t o fthe c o unty g o ve r nm ent. The n am ed i nsured o n the l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy i s l oca ted at 2 28 N or th Centr alA venue, the sam e a dd re ss l i ste d pu bl i cl y b y the co unty f ori ts sher i ff’ s depart m ent. http: //w w w . edgar county- i l

. gov/S heri ff/def aul t. aspx ( l ast vi s i t e d Ap r . 8 , 2 0 1 0 )
. T he a ddr e s s f o r the Co un t y o f Edga r i ts el f, b o tha cc o rd in gt o the CGL po l i ci es a nd the county’ s websi te, i s “ Ed garCounty Cour th ou se, ” which i s ac tu ally l oca ted at11 5 W estCourtS tr eeti n Pari s. http: //w w w . edgar county- i l

. g o v/ Co un ty Cl e r k/ de f a ul t
. a s px ( l astvi si ted A pr. 8, 20 10)
. The endors em ent doe s pro vi de cov er age f orEdgar County as an a dd i ti onali nsured. Bu t i t doe s no t co ver10 N o. 09

- 1497 M c Fa tr id ge or th e s ta te ’s a tt or n ey ’s offic e for th e c laim s in St eid l’s s u it. E d ga r C ou n ty is an ad d itio n al in su re d “o n ly w i th r espect [ ] to l i abi l i ty ar i si ng ou t ofthe acti vi ti es of th e nam ed i ns ure d , ” the sheriff’s d e p a rtm en t. H ow ever, the l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy does not conte m pla te cover ag e f o r a l l law e nf o r ce m en t ac ti vi tys i m pl y b y v i r tu e o fi ts t ak i ngpl ac e wi th i n Edg arC ou nty
. M cF at r i dge a nd the s tat e’ s a tto rney ’ s offi ce b ecam e invol ved as the st ate’s ch iefprose cu ting o ff ic iali n E d gar C ou nt y. T he state’s at to r ne y ’ s dut y i n thi s ca se a r i se s f r o m I l l i no i s l aw, and n ot“o u t o ft h e a c tiv itie s o f th e [s h er iff’s d ep ar tm en t].” U nd erst ate l aw the sta te’ s a tto rneym us t “ pros ecute all

. . . ind ictm en ts an d p rosecu tions
. . . in th e c ircuit cou rt f orhi s co un ty .” 55 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 5/3- 9005 ( a) ( 1)
. W hen M c Fa tr id ge inv es tig at e d , ch ar ge d an d p ro se c u te d Ste id l, he en g ag ed i n a ct i vi tya r i singo uto fhi s dut i es a s st ate’s at to rney a s de fi ne d b y I l l i no i s l aw, no t as pa r t o fthe acti vi ti es ofthe County ofEdgar S heri ff’ s Depart m ent. A r ea di ngo fS te i dl ’ s co m pl aintr ev ea l s th atthe s he r i ff’s depa r tmentwas no t i nv o l ve d in the i nv es ti g at i o n a nd i ts acti vi ti es ar e no t the subj ect of the l aw sui t. M cFat ri dge w or ked so l el y with the Pari s pol i ce a n d I l l i noi s S tat e P olic e. In sh or t, th e c ou n ty is n otins u re d in t h is case bec ause any l i abi l ity i t m i ght ha ve to St ei dl f or hi s wr on gful pros ecuti on a ri ses o nl y thro ugh the acti vi ty ofthe sta te’ s a tto rne y and not thro ugh any acti vi ti es of the s heri ff’ s depart m ent. I fco ver age f orthe cou nty in St ei dl’ s ca se w er e no t al r ea dy for ec l o se d b y the f ac t th atthe l aw e nf o r ce m en t p oli cya nd i ts e ndo r se m en t co ve r s he r i ff’ s depa r tment ac ti vi ti es o nl y, the r es t o fthe p oli cy ’ s te r m s una m bi g u-N o. 09

- 1497 11 ousl y do the j ob. The te rm s of t h e “ I nsuri ng Agree m ent” ex p licit ly p ro vid e t h at th e p olic y p ro vid es co ve ra ge in th e even t of an i njury or da m age cau sed by an “oc cu rre nce. ” The pol i cy defi nes “ occur re nce” as “an eve nt,
. . . wh i ch r esul ts i n . . . i nj ury . . . and a ri si ng out of the per f or m ance o fthe ins ure d’s l aw e nf o r ce m en t duti es. ” Ap p. atA

- 164 ( em phasi s a dd ed ). A s m enti oned abov e, the i nsureds in thi s case a re the sher i ff’ s depart

m en t and the c o unty, b uto nl y f o r “ l i ab i l i tya r i singo ut of t h e a c tiv itie s” of t h e s h er iff’s d ep ar tm en t. T h er e is no s uch l i abi l i ty here . M cFat ri dge’ s invol vem ent a ro se o u t o f h i s d u t y a s s t a t e ’ s a t t o r n e y a n d th e a c t i v i t i es o ft he Pa r i s po l i ce a nd I l l i no i s S ta te Po l i ce . W ith no l aw e nforcem en t activity by the sh eriff’ s d ep artm en t, th ere w as n o c ov er ed “o c c u rre n c e” an d n o d u ty for Sc ot ts d a le to defe nd the county i n thi s ca se. Despit e thi s s eem i ngl y cl earlang uage l i m i ti ng co ver age to si tuati ons w here l i abi l i ty ar ose fro m sher i ffdepartm ent acti vi ti es, Edgar County furtherm ai ntai ns that am bi gui ty i n the “Conditi ons” sect i on o fthe pol i cy cr ea te s th e po ss ibi l ity o fc o ve r ag e f o r M cF at r i dge

. The sect i on pro vi des as f ol l ows: 1. PREM I U M
. . . . F o r the pur po se o fde te r m i ni ng th e a c tu al p re m iu m , th e fo llow in g d efin itio n s w ill apply:

. . . . “Cla ss C E m plo yees”

— th o se e m pl o y ee s who do not exer ci se pow ero far re st and wh ose d u tie s a re on ly a d m in ist ra tiv e in n at u re .”12 N o. 09

- 1497 A pp . atA

- 164. The pol i cy then l i sts sp eci fi c posi ti ons that are p art of th e C lass C ca tegory

— cou nt y com m iss io ne r, m ayo r, auxi l i ar y poli ce o ffi cerand cor oner . The di str i ct cou rt held that M cFat ridge an d t h e E d gar C ou nt y State’s A tto rneyar e no t Cl ass C em plo ye es because under I l l i noi s l aw th e state’ s a tto rney ’ s duti es ar e no t j ust “a dm i ni st r at i ve ” in na tu r e, a c o ns tr uct i o n whi chthe pla i nti ff s Nati onal and S cot tsdal e ur ge us to affi rm . Edgar C ou n ty m ain ta in s t h at th e s ta te ’ s a tt or n ey fits w ith in thi s de fi ni t i o n b e c aus e h e i s n o ts pe c i fi c a l l y e xc l ud e d, do e s n o th a v e th e p o we r o fa r r e s t, a n d “ p r o v i d e s a d mi nist ra tiv e a ss ist an c e to law en for c em en t.” B u t t h e p lain l anguage o fthis s ecti on i nd i cate s that in or der t o be a “Cl as s C” empl o y ee , o ne mustb e an“ empl o y ee ” o fthe insu red

. M cFat ridge is n ot an em p loyee ofthe sh eriff’ s d e p a r t m e n t o r th e c o u n t y, a n d c a n n o t b e a C l a s s C e mplo yee under the l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy. The be st chara cter i zati on o fthe st ate ’ s at to r ney i s th athe i s a st at e co nst itu tio n al off icia l w ith j u ris d ict ion in t h e c ou n ty in whi chhe i s el ec te d. He c ans er ve as a n a g en t o fthe county w hen r epres en ti ng co unty o ffi cer s in sui ts b r o ughta g a i ns tthe m o r o n the i r b e hal f

. 55 I l l

. Co mp. Stat. 5/3

- 9005 ( a) ( 3) , ( 4)
. But his p rim ar y duty i s pro secut i ngc r i m i na l a ct i o ns

— a functi on he fulfi l l s as a sta te em p loye e . 5 5 I ll

. Com p . Stat. 5/3

- 90 05 ( a) ( 1)
. The g o ve r nm en t o f th e c ou n ty in w h ich th e s ta te ’s a tt or n ey is el e c t e d h a s n e i the r the p o we r t o di r e c t, o v e r s e e n or contr ol these pros ecuti ons; the sta te’ s att or ney i s n ot i ts em plo yee . Fur ther, I l l i noi s l aw expl i ci tl y ho l ds that the s tat e’ s a tto rneyi s a st ate , a n d n ot a co unty e m plo yee . M cG rath v. Gillis , 4 4 F
. 3d 56 7, 5 71 ( 7th Ci r . 1 995);N o. 09

- 1497 13 Ing em un son v. Hedg es , 54 9 N
. E.2 d 1269 (Ill. 19 90) ( “[ D]r afters o fo ur pre sent const i tuti on a gr eed .

. . that sta te’ s a tto rne ys s houl d be cl ass i fi ed as sta te, r ather th an cou nt y officers. ”). That the I l l i noi s Const i tuti on t re ats st ate ’ s att orneys differ entl y f ro m othe r county offi ci al s add s fu rther supp or t t o this hol ding. The posi ti on o fst ate ’ s a tto rney i s cr eat ed i n th e j u dici alar ti cl e. I l l

. Const. ar t. VI, § 19. Cou nt i e s h a v e n o p o we r t o e l i mi na t e the s t a t e ’ s a t t o r ne y p o s it ion and m ultiple cou nt ies m ay sh are a single state’s at to rn ey on ly if th e v ot er s in ea c h c o u n ty ag re e. Id. By co nt r as t, a l l o th erc o unty o ffi ce s a re c r ea te d wi th i n the c on st itu tio n ’s loc al g ov er n m en t a rt icle

. Id
. atar t. V II, § 4 (sheriff, clerk, treasu rer, corone r, assess or, record er, a u d itor)
. U nlike i ts li m ited p ow er over the sta te’s attorn ey , t he co unty ca n com ple tel y e l i m i nate any o fthes e posi ti ons via re fer endu m and can e ven e l i m i nate so m e s im p ly b y p as sin g a n ord in an c e. Id. A cknowle d gin g thi s a uthor i ty, the county att em pts to dist i ngui sh the I lli noi s ca ses and const i tuti onalfra m ew or k b y pointi ng o ut thatthe sta te’s at torney s er ves as the c ounty’ s a tto rney

— i ts a g en t

— i n c i vi l a ct i o ns b r ou g ht b y, an d against th e cou nt y. T he bu d get for th e state’s att or ney’ s o ffi ce a nd a p or tio n ofhi s s al ar y c om e fro m county coffer s, sugg est i ng tha t the st ate ’ s a tto rn ey m ay be a co unty e m plo yee i n so m e s i tuati ons. The pro bl em w i th thi s a rgum ent i s that i t also prov es the o pp osi te po i nt : whenpr o se cut i ngc r i m i na l c as es , s ucha s th e case ag ainst St ei dl, the sta te’ s a tto rneyact s in hi s ind epen dent capaci ty as a r epres entat i ve ofthe peopl e o f14 N o. 09

- 1497 Illino i s i n th e c ou n ty in w h ich h e w or ks . W h ile the c ounty does pay a port i on o fthe sal ar y, th e s tat e pays tw o- thi rd s, a divi si on that would s eem to r efl ect the di vi si on be tw een the st ate ’s at to rney ’ s duti es as a c rim in al pr ose cutorand ser vi ce t o the c ounty i n other c irc u m st an c es . See 55 Il l. C om p . Sta t. 5/4-2 00 1(a ). I t is tr ue, as the county poi nts ou t that the st ate ’ s a tto rney can be char acte ri zed a county age nt atvar i ous t i m es. Bu t when M cFat ri dge i nvest i gat ed, char ged and pro secuted St eid l, he a cted o n behal fo fthe sta te and w as not a C l a s s C e mp l o y e e o fE d g a r C o u n t y o r e v e n a n e mp loy ee atall. Fi nal l y, we note that eve n i fnone ofthe above was tr u e re gar ding the s tat e’ s a tto rney ’ s no n-s tatus as a county em plo yee , i t i s doub tfu l thatthe “Conditi ons” sec t i o n o f the l a w e nfo r c e men t po l i c y wo ul d g i v e r i se to the insurer ’ s duty t o defe nd

. A s the i nsurer s poi nt o ut, thi s s ect i on purpor ts onl y t o define cl ass es ofem plo yee s f o r pur po se s o fc al cul at i ngpr emi um s. I t sa y s no th i ng ab o utc ha ng i ngo th erde fi ni ti o ns i n the po l i cyde sc r ibi ng w ho i s a n in su re d . S o a duty t o defe nd the i nsured f or an acto fa “Cla ss C” em plo yee ar i ses o nl y i fthe othe r po l i c y r e qu i r e men t s a nd de fi ni t i o ns a r e s a t i s fi e d. F or exam ple , the “I nsuring A gr eem ent” say s that the pol i cy w i l l pay dam age s ca used by the ins ure d’s wr on gfu l ac ts “ar i si ng o ut o fthe perf or m an c e of the insu red’s d uties to provi de l aw enfor cem ent” acti vi ty. A s di scusse d above , th e “ins ur ed” i s th e s he r i ff’ s depa r tmentwi ththe County ofEdgar b ei ng a dd i ti onal l y c ove re d. So act s ar e co ver ed onl y i fthey a ris e out o fthe perf or m ance o f the s heri ff’ s depart m ent’ s l aw enf or cem en t d u ties , o r atN o. 09

- 1497 15 i ts ver y b ro adest, the county’s law enf or cem ent duti es. M c F a t r i d g e ’ s p r o s e c u t i o n o f S t e i d l h a d n o th i n g t o do w i th duti es ofeit h er the countyo r i ts sher i ff’ s depart

m en t to pr o vi de l aw e nf o r ce m ent a ctivi ti es . Ba se d o n the c om p lai nt, the county and i ts sher i ff’ s depart m ent had nothi ng to do with the pros ecuti on a nd any m i sco nd uct by M c Fa tri dge was not part ofthe county’ s “ du ti es to pr o vi de l aw e nf o r ce m en t. ” Eve n i fM cF at r i dge fi t th e defini ti on o fa “Cla ss C” em ploye e, w hi ch he doe s no t, the insurerh as no du ty to defe nd hi m under the l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy because the “I nsuri ng A gr eem ent” l i m i ts c o ve r ag e to l i abili tyf o r tho se a ct s o fthe v ar i o us cl ass es o fe m pl o y ee s unde r ta k enpur su an t to the c ou n t y ’ s d u ty to p ro vid e la w en for c em en t. T h e d efin itio n of C las s C em p loy ee s d o e s n o t h in g t o c h an ge th is an d the i ns urer s ha ve no duty t o de fen d unde r the l aw enf or cem ent pol i cy.

2. M cFat r i dge as an I nsu r ed

— Th e CG L Pol i ci es Li ke the l aw enfo rce m ent pol i ci es, the thr ee CG L pol i ci es co v e r th e c o u n t y o n a n o c c u r r e n c e b a s i s . T o d e t e r m i ne w hetherthe i nsurer s hav e a duty t o defe nd , we m atch the f actualal l ega ti ons i n St ei dl’ s co m pla i nt ag ai nst e ach o fth e p o l i c i e s t o d e t e r mi n e w h e th e r a n y o fth e c l a i ms fall w ith in th e c ov er ag e. B A SF AG v . G rea t A m . Assurance Co. , 52 2 F
. 3d 813, 81 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. A ny am bi gui ties in the policy are resol ved i n th e insu red ’s f avor. The thre e CGL pol i ci es did notta ke effect unti l after M cFat ri dge l eft t h e s tat e’ s a tto rney ’ s o ffi ce. They offer nearly iden tical coverage. Eac h p oli cy cov ers16 N o. 09

- 1497

“ ‘ [ p] er so na l i nj ur y ’ c au se d b y a n o ffen se a r i singo ut o f[ Cou nty o fEdg ar ’ s] b us i ne ss . . . b uto nl y i fthe o ffe ns e wa s c o mm i t t e d .

. . dur i ngthe p o l i c y p e r i o d. ” App
. at A

- 27, A

- 50, A

- 74. A l l thr ee p olic i es cove re d perso nal i nj ur y ar i sing f r o m o ffen se s su ch as “f al se ar rest, det en tio n or im p ris on m en t” an d “[m ]alic iou s p ro se c u tio n .” The fi rs t pol i cy, i ssued b y N atio nal, co ver ed the peri od fro m Ju ly 1 , 199 7, th ro u gh Ju ly 1 , 199 8. Sc ot ts d ale i ss ue d the s ec o nd t wo po l i ci es , e ac h i n e ffec t f o r o ne yea r, fro m J u ly 1, 19 98, thr ough J uly1, 20 00. Each i nsured the “County ofEdgar, ” i ts “em plo yee s, ” “ el ecti ve offi cer s, ” a nd “dulyel ecte d offi ci al s. ” Thus the thre e CGL po l i ci es i ns ur e th e co unty, i ts e m pl o y ee s an d el ected offi ci al s in the eve nt o ne o fthem bec om es l i ab l e be ca us e o fa n o ffen se co m m i tt ed wi th i n the po l i c y p e r i o d. T h e d i s t r ict co u rth eld th at on ly tw o a lleg at ion s in S te i dl ’ s co m pl aintde sc r ibe o ffen se s co m m it te d dur i ng the pol i cy peri ods. I n J anuary19 98, M cFat ri dge g ave fal se testim ony a t an ev iden tiary hearing h eld to d etermi ne wh e the r p o s t
- c o nv i c t i o n r e l i e fwa s wa r r a nt e d. T h en , w h ile St eid l’s p ost
- convi cti on peti ti on was pendi ng, McF a t r i dg e p e r pe t ua t e d a p ub l i c i t y c a mpa i gn to defe at the pet iti on. The co urt hel d that ne i thero f the s e a c t s t r i g g e r s c o v e r a g e u nd e r the CG L p o l i c i es. M cF at r i dge l eft th e st at e’ s at to r ne y ’ s o ffi ce in 1 99 1 an d w as no l o ng e r a n e l e c t e d o ffi c i a l i n the c o un t y when he eng age d i n thes e a cts. To the exte nt the y c onst i tute “offenses ” withi n the cove ra ge provi ded , the dist ri ct cour t dete rm i ned that M cFat ri dge ac ted as a pri vate ci ti zen a nd notas an insured. I t con cl ud ed that none o f the three CG L p oli ci es conte m pla tes co ver age f orN o. 09

- 1497 17 l i abi l i ty ar i si ng fro m offenses co m m i tte d by a f or m er offi ci alafterthato ffi ci all eft o ffi ce. W e a gr ee w i th the d i str i ct court
. T he C GL p ol i ci es cove r “in su re d s,” d efin ed as “e m p loy ee s” a n d “ e l ec te d

. . . offic ials .” M c Fa tr id ge leftth e s ta te ’s a tt or n ey ’s o ffice in 19 91 a nd was no t an elect ed o ffi ci aldur i nga nyo fthe CGL po l i cype r i o ds. Be ca us e he was no t ani ns ur ed, no ne ofthe m i sco nd uct S tei dl cl ai m s M cFat ri d ge com m i tte d du ring the pol i cy peri ods i s a co ver ed occur re nce. T he cou nt y p oints to seve ral en d orsem en ts to th e third CGL po l i cys ta tingtha t “al l pe r so ns who wer e . . . y o ur l awful l y e lect ed

. . . o ffi ci al s” a r e i ns ur eds

. Butthe policy c ove rs o nl y insureds forl i abi l i ty ar i si ng o ut o f o cc ur r en ce s dur i ngthe po l i cype r i o d. S te i dl ’ s co m pl aint do e s n o tc l a i m a nymi s c o nd uc tdu r i ng the th i r d C GL per i o d. I fno ne o fM cF at r i dge ’ s o ffen se s o cc ur r ed dur i ng the p o l i c y p e r i o d, the r e i s n o du t y t o de fe nd under that pol i cy. The county al so cl ai m s tha t co ver age i s t ri gge re d und er the CGL pol i ci es because M c Fat ri dge’ s m i sco nd uct was a n o n g o in g t or t t h at co n tin u ed from Ste id l’s a rre st in 1 9 8 7 u n t i l h i s r e l e a s e i n 2 0 0 3
. B u t th i s i g n o r e s th att he CG L pol i ci es provi de cov er age o nl y i fthe “o ffense w as com m itted

. . . in the p oli cy p eriod.” N one of th e tort offen ses Steid l claim s M cFat rid ge com m itted as state’s att or ney o ccurr ed duri ng anyo fthe pol i cy peri ods. The c o mpl a i nts a y s McF a t r i dg e ’ s c o nd uc te nt i tl es St ei dl to dam age s f ora var i etyo foffe n se s un der b oth sta te and fe derallaw

. The federa l l aw o ffenses under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 i ncl ud e f al se i m pri sonm ent, depri vati on18 N o. 09

- 1497 ofthe S t e i dl ’ s r i g htt o a f a i r t r i a l, wr o ng fulc o nv i cti on and denialo fdue proc ess . But none o fthes e offenses occur re d du ring t h e CGL pol i cy peri ods. A § 1983 f al se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m se eks dam age s f ori nj u ry cause d by th e pl aint iff’ s det en ti o n wi th o utpr o babl e ca us e. The f al se i m pr i so nm en t en d s, an d the c l ai m a cc r ue s when he i s hel d pu rs uant to a w arra n t oro therj ud i ci al l y i ssued p ro c es s. Wal la ce v. Ka to , 549 U
. S. 384, 390-93 (2007 ). M cFat ri dge o btained a warr ant t o ar re st St eid l o n Fe bruar y 1 9, 19 87, and a g ra nd j ury i nd i cted S tei dl on M ar ch 10 , 19 87
. S o to th e ex te nt S te i dl ’ s com p la i nt m ake s o ut a § 1 983 c lai m i n the nature o ff al se ar re st, that offen se w as com m i tte d at the ve ryl ate st i n 198 7, befo reSte id l w as arr es t e d p u rs u an t t o a j u d icia lly iss u ed w ar ra n t, an d w ell b efo re an y of t h e p olic y p er iod s . S t e i dl ’ s o the r fe de r a l l a w c l a i ms f o r u nc o ns t i t ut i o nal convi ctio n, i m pri sonm ent, and denia l o fdue proc ess , o n th e o th erha nd, cha ll en g e th e va l i di tyo fhi s co nv i ct i o n. These cl aim s did notacc rue unti l 20 03, bec ause they re quir e S tei dl to prove thathi s “ convi ction
. . . has bee n re ver sed o n dir ect appeal, . . . o r cal l ed i nto questi on bya federa l co urt’ s is suance ofa w ri t o fhabea s co rpus. ” He ckv. H um ph rey, 512 U .S. 47 7, 48 6-8 7 (1 99 4); Jo hn son v. D o ssey, 515 F. 3d 778, ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. S o St eidl di d not hav e a c om p lete ca use o fact i on, and ther e was no offense of w ro n gfu l co n vic ti o n o r d ep riv at ion of d u e p ro c es s u n til J une 17, 20 03, wh en the di str i ct c ourti ssu ed t he wri t o f habeas cor pu s. This i s l ong afterthe CG L pol i ci es expir ed and the i nsurer s hav e no duty t o defe nd a ga in st these cl ai m s.N o. 09

- 1497 19 S t e i d l ’ s s t a t e l a w c l a i ms s u f f e r th e s a me f a t e . He cl ai m s dam age f orf al se i m pri sonm ent, m al i ci ou s p ro secut i o n, i nt enti o na l i nfl i ct i o n o fe m o ti o na l di st r es s an d conspi ra cy und erI l l i noi s l aw . Li ke h i s § 19 83 cl ai m s, St ei dl’ s f al se ar re st ended, and the cl ai m accr ued w h en au th o rit ies got a w ar ra n t fo r h is a rre st
. M er cado v. Vill
. of Addi s on , 89 8 N
. E.2 d 1089, 10 92 ( I ll. A pp . Ct. 20 08) ; Sm i t h v
. Boudre au , 85 2 N
. E.2 d 43 3, 442 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Wal la ce, 54 9 U.S
. at42 7, as co ntro l l i ng ac crual ofst ate and federa l f al se ar re st cl ai m s)
. A n y offenses re l ati ng to St ei dl bei ng ar re ste d without probab le cause w er e a c c o r d i n gly co m m itt ed , at t h e v er y la te st, in Febr uaryo r M ar ch 198 7, l ong bef or e a ny o fth e poli cy peri ods. On the othe r hand , the sta te l aw m al i ci ous pr ose cu tion c laim de p en d s up on th e invalidation of Steidl’s unde r l y i ngc o nv i ct i o n. Cult Aw areness Net w ork v. Ch u rc h o f Scien to lo gy, Inter. , 685 N
. E
. 2d 1347, 13 51 (I ll

. 1997). T h at offe n se d id n otoc c u r, for in su ra n c e p u rp os es , un til Ju n e 2003, se ver alye ar s a fterthe CG L pol i ci es expir ed in 20 00
. See Sec. M utu a l C a s . I n s . C o . v. Ha rbo r Ins. , 38 2 N .E .2 d 1, 6 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 78 ), r e v’ d on othe rgroun ds 397 N
. E
. 2d 839 (I ll

. 1979).

3. Th e Lo cal G overnm enta l and G ove r nm enta l Em ploy ees Tor tI m m un i ty Act The county add i ti onal l y a rgu es thatI l l i noi s l aw re quir es i t t o i nd em ni fy the st ate ’ s atto rney ’ s o ffi ce for an y d am ag es it p ay s t o St eid l on h is c laim s. Se e 7 4 5 Il l. Com p. St at . 10/9- 102; Ca rve r v. Sheri ff of LaSalleCo unty, 78 7 N
. E. 2d 12 7, 1 38

- 39 ( I l l

. 2 00 3)
. I nde m ni fy i ngthe20 N o. 09

- 1497 st at e’ s at to r ne y ’ s o ffi ce f o r i ts liabi l i ty, a cc o r di ngt o the coun t y, mea ns tha t i t wo ul d b e “ l e g a l l y o b l i g a t ed to p ay d am ag es be c au se o f‘ p er so n al inj u ry ,’ ” w h ich it cl ai m s th e po l i ci es c o ve r . W e fi nd , ho wev er, tha t su cha vi ew m i sr eads bo th the te rm s o fthe i nsurance pol icies , an d the ho l di ngi n C a rver, 78 7 N
. E.2 d at 1 39. C a rverhe l d tha t th e Lo ca l Go ve r nm en tala nd Go ve r nmen t a l Empl o y e e s T o r tI mm un i t y Ac t, 745 I l l

. Co mp. St at. 10 /9

- 102, requi re s a co unty t o pay j ud gm ents re n d er ed ag ain st th e s h er iff’s o ffice , an ind ep en d en tly el ecte d county offi ci alr el i ant o n th e co unty f oro peratio n al fu n d in g. C a rver, 78 7 N
. E.2 d at 1 38- 39. Court s hav e su bs eque nt l y a ppl i ed th i s pr i nc i pl e to s ui ts i nv o l ving oth er ind ep en d en t o ffi ci al s whos e o per at i o ns the c ou n ty fu n d s. See, e.g., H ors t m an v. County of D uPage, 28 4 F. Sup p. 2d 1125, 11 31- 32 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 03) ( ci ti ng B iggerst aff v. M oran , 671 N
. E.2 d 781, 78 4 ( I l l

. 19 96) )
. But the obl i gati on to pay the j ud gm ent does not m ean the county its elf i s l i abl e t o the pl ai nti ff

. Rather, the county i s o nl y a nece ssar y party to the sui t so that, as an i nsurer or ba ckst op f o r the i nde pen den t o ffi ci al, i t m ay“ ve to i m pr o vi den t set tl em ents. ” C arverv. Sher if f of LaSalleC ounty, 32 4 F.3d 947, 948 (7th C ir. 2003). A dd i ti onal l y, as we hel d abov e, the pol i ci es i ssued to Edga r Co unty c o ve r onl y “ i ns ur eds , ” m ea ni ngthe county, i ts el ecte d offi ci al s, and em plo yee s. These insu red s are not cov ered un less the offense occ u rs d uring the p oli c y p e riod. E ven thou gh pers ona l inj ury li abili ty m ay be the origi na l sou rce of a n offi cial’ s l i abi l i ty, a county’ s obl igati on t o i nd em ni fy that o ffi ci alN o. 09

- 1497 21 f ortha t liabi l i ty ar i ses by o perat i on o fl aw and i s no t a n occur re nce. The co unty’ s obl i gat i on t o pay j ud gm en ts aga i nst M cFat ri d ge o r the s tat e’ s a tto rney ’ s o ffi ce under § 1 0/ 9- 102 i s no t a n occ urr ence or acci dent as defined by t h e p o l i c i e s a n d th e i n s u r e r s h a v e n o d u t y t o de f en d ori nd em ni fy the co unty.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe for eg oi ng r eas ons, the i nsurer s hav e no duty to defe nd o r i nd em ni fy M cFat ri dge o r Ed garCounty. The deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

4- 28- 10