FIFTH DIVISION Novem ber 20, 2009
No. 1-08- 3529 RIV ER VI LLAGE I, LLC, a/k /a R iver V ill age , LL C, and ) Appe al fro m the HARLEYSVILLE LAK

E STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of ) Co o k C o un t y. Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts and Cro ss-Appell

ees, )

) v. ) No. 06 CH 11597 ) CENTR AL INSUR AN CE CO MPA

NIES, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) James E pst ein, De f en da n t-A pp el l ee an d C ros s- A

pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.
JU STI CEFI TZ GE RA

LDSM ITH

de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plain tiff s-app ell ants and cr oss- appellees Riv er Vill age I, LLC, a/k /a River Vil lage, LLC (Ri ve r Vi l l ag e or p l ai

nti f f s) , an d H arl ey sv i l l e L ake Sta

tesIn su ran ceCom pa ny (Ha rley sv i l l e or plaint iff s) br ou ght a de clara t or y judgment act ion ag ainst defend ant -a ppe llee and c ro ss- app ellant Central Insurance Compani es (Central) seeking def

ense and i ndem ni fi cation. Followin

g cro ssmotions for sum ma ry j udgme nt, the trial c ourt hel

d in fav or o f Ce ntral, f in din g it was n ot required to cover R

i ve r Vi l l ag e p urs ua nt to a certai n i ns ura nc e p ol i cy . Pl

ai nti f f s m ove d f or re con si de rati on and t he t rial co ur t denied t heir mo t ion. Plaint iff s ap pea l from bo t h or der s, c ont ending t hat t he
cou rt er red i n g ran ti ng su m mary j udg men t to Centr al an d i n d en y i ng the i r m oti on f or reconsi deration. They

ask that we reverse these orders an d reman d the cause f

or further
co nsid er at io n. Fo rt he fo llo win g r ea so ns, we affir m. BACK GROUND I n 2 00 4, Rive rVilla ge wa s t he ge ne r al c o nt r ac t o ro n a bu ilding pr o jec t , wit h H ar leys ville as i ts pri mary i ns urer. R i ver Vi l l age h i red F i rst Ch oic e Dry wal l (Fi rst Ch oic e) to perf

ormNo. 1-08- 3529

2

subcontractin

g work at the project si

te. A contract between Ri ver Vi ll age and F irst Ch

oice req ui red Fi rs t Ch oi ceto na me R i ve r Vi l l ag e a s a n a ddi ti ona l i ns ure d on i ts i ns ura nc e p ol i cy

f or def en se a nd i nde m ni f i cation pur

poses . This con

tract did not sp eci

f y wh at typ e of

i ns uran ce, i.e. , prim ary or excess, First Choice was required to o btain f or River Vil

lage, but only

that First Cho ice wa s t o " indemnify and ho ld har mless" River Village fo r a ny and all claims and "p ay for and
mai ntai n" such i ns uran ce a s ag reed to by the p arti es. Pu rsu ant t o t his co nt ra ct , Fir st Cho ice ad ded River V ill age as a n add itio nal insure d t o t he
comm ercia l ge neral li abi li ty i nsuran ce poli cy it had w ith i ts insurer, Central. This Central policy
con tai n ed an "oth er i n su ra n ce " ex ce ss

pr ov i si on , s tati n g, i n perti n en t pa rt:

" B. Addition al Insured – Automatic Status (not applicable to Employee Benefits Liability Cover age) 1. Section II – WHO IS AN INSURED is am ended to in

cl ude as an i ns ure d a ny pe rs on or

orga ni za ti on ( cal l ed

addi ti ona l i ns ure d) w hom you are required to add as an addi tional in sured on thi s poli

cy ***.
*** 3. As respec

ts the coverage *** provided un der the General

Li abi li ty Pl us Section IV

– Comm ercial L iability C onditions , P ar agr aph 4.b.2) is
am ended wi th the addi

tion of the f

oll owing: 4. Other insurance – Ex cess Insurance
*** b. 2) Thi s i

nsuran ce i s ex ces s ove r:No. 1-08- 3529

3 Any ot her valid and c ollect ible insuranc e ava ilable to t he addi ti ona l i ns ure d w he the r pr i mary , ex ce ss , con ti ng en t or on any ot her bas is

unless a contract speci fi

cally requires tha

t t his insura nce be eithe r p rimary o r p rimary and noncontr ib

uting." The poli cy al so contained an

am endm ent of pri ma ry an d excess provisi on endorsem

ent, which reiterated paragraph 4.b.2) by stating: "Any co ver age pr ovid ed he re unde r sha ll be excess ove r a ny ot her valid and collecti ble insurance availab le to t he additi onal i nsured whether primary, excess,
co nt ing en t o ro n a ny o t he rba sis un les s a co nt r ac t sp ec ifica lly re qu ire s t ha t t his insurance be ei

ther pr im ary or primary

and noncontributing." In addi tion, the certif

ic ate of in surance issued to River Vil la ge by Central for the poli

cy stated t hat River V ill age wo uld be " add ed a s pr imary add itio nal insure d if req uire d by wr itt en co nt ra ct on t he above general l

iab il ity policy." In March 2004, Ricky

Roche, an em

ploy ee of Fi rst Choice, was i

nj ured whi

le working at the project si

te. He brought suit again st, among others, Riv

er Vil la ge. In October 2005, River Vil l age ten

dered i ts def en se i n the su i t to Fir st Ch

oic e, notin

g tha t it wa s i nstructi ng i ts i ns urer, Harley svi ll e, not t o respond to the sui t o r provide coverage un

le ss an d until the policy

Ri ver Villa ge ha d w it h C en t r al t hr o ug h it s c o nt r ac t wit h Fir st Ch o ice wa s e xha us t ed
. Whe n C en t r al d id not respond, Rive

r Vil la ge tendered i

ts defense di

rectly to it i n Feb ruary 2006; Ri

ver Vi ll age m ade
a se cond tender i n A pril 2006.No. 1-08- 3529

4

In Ju ne 200 6, R i ve r Vi l l ag e b roug ht a de cl ara tory j udg men t an d brea ch of con tract ac ti on agai nst Central , clai

mi ng that Central

owed it a def

ense i n the Roche l

iti gation. Central

responded by denying te nder , filing an answ er and br inging its o wn co unt er claim for d eclar at or y judgment agai nst Ri ver Vi ll age. There were several b ases f or Central's

counterclai

m, i ncl udin g that River Villa ge wa s no t a p r o pe rpa r t y, t he co nt r ac t be t we en Rive rVilla ge an d F irs t Ch o ice co ve r ed o nly
cer t ain individuals and not River V ill age as a business ent ity, a bod ily injury exclusio n app lied, a nd Ce n tral ' s i n su ra n ce wa s on l y ex ce ss to th e p ri mar y pol i cy Ri v er Vi l l ag e m ai n tai n ed wi th Harl eysv i l l e. As l itigation progressed, Central requested, as part o f discovery , that River Vi ll age pr ovid e t he name o f any indivi dua l who c ond uct ed a n invest igat ion r elat ive to River V ill age 's cla im fo rinsu r an ce co ve r ag e u nd er an y po licy o t he rt ha n C en t r al' s, as we ll as a c o py o f all insu r an ce po licie s c o ve r ing Rive rVilla ge fo ran y wo r k p er fo r med at t he pr o jec t sit e, wh ich wo uld have includ ed t he Ha rleysville policy. River Village o bject ed t o t hese re que st s as " irre levant and i m mate rial," sta ti n g th at th ey were"c al

cul ate d to h

aras s a n d s eek[ ] i

n f orm ati on n ot ca l cul ate d to be adm is si ble at tr ia l a s [they ] seek[] in

form ation unrel

ated to this

li tigation." A

ccordingl y, Ri ver Vil lag e d id

no t pr o vid e C en t r al w it h a co py o f it s H ar leys ville po licy. River V ill age and C ent ra l then filed c ro ss- mot ions fo r su mmary judgment . Ad dr essing t he se , t he t r ial c o ur t pa r t iall y he ld in fa vo ro f Ri ve rVil lag e b y find ing t ha t it wa s a pr o pe rpa r t y, the con tract did i nte nd to cover i

t asan addi ti ona l i ns ure d, a nd the bod i l y i njury excl us i on d i d n ot appl y. Howeve

r, the court found that there was a gen uin e i ssue of m

aterial fact as to whether Central 's i nsuran ce poli cy was pri ma ry or onl y e xcess as to River Vi

ll age and, theref

ore, remandedNo. 1-08- 3529

5

the m atter. Meanwh il e, the Roche liti

gation settled an

d that cause was di sm

is sed; Harl

ey svi ll e pai d out on the cl ai

m on b ehal

f of Ri ver Vi ll age, which was wi

thin its polic y l im its. Acc ordingl

y, the tria l court al lowed Ri

ver Vi ll age to fil e a second am

ended com

pla in t in the C entral l

iti gation to add Har leysvil le as a p ar t y plaintiff. The co ur t also gr ant ed t he pa rt ies leave t o file new c ro ss- mot ions for sum ma ry j udgme nt, speci fi cally and solel y on the is sue of wh

ether Central 's polic

y was pri mary or onl y ex ces s as to Ri ver Vil l age' s pol

i cy wi th Ha rl eysv i l l e. On October 15, 2008, the court hel d oral argum

ent on these cross-m

ot ions , during w

hich it no t ed t ha t t he co nt r ac t be t we en Rive rVilla ge an d F irs t Ch o ice r eq uir ing t he lat t er t o o bt ain insura nce fo r t he fo rmer did no t co nt ain langua ge s pec ify ing t hat t he insur ance be pr imary. T he court asked plai

ntif fs to produce a copy of the Harl ey svi ll e poli cy , which h

ad not been sub

mi tt ed in to evi dence, so i

t could exam

in e whether that poli

cy contain ed a provis ion s im

il ar to paragraph 4.b.2) in the Central

policy regardin g excess ot her i nsuran ce: "T HE CO UR T : T he qu es t io n I ha ve is: Do we ha ve t he Ha r leys ville po licy? [ CE NT RA L] : I r eq ue st ed t ha t in w r it t en di sc o ve ry. TH E C OUR T: All right. So t he qu est ion I have is: Is t her e a d ueling
ex ce ss cla us e in t he Ha r leys ville po licy?

*** Why h av en 't we se en t ha t po licy? [PLAINTIFFS]: Becaus e, your Honor, based on our review of the caseNo. 1-08- 3529

6 law , t he Ha r leys ville p o licy a nd it s c o nt en t s, inc lud ing it s o t he r - insu r an ce cla us e, is i rrelev an t." In rel ati on to th i s, th e c ourt ref

erred to Ohi o Casual ty Insuran ce Co. v. Oak Builde

rs, Inc. , 37 3 I ll. Ap p. 3d 99 7 ( 20 07 ) , wh ich ne it he rpa r t y had dis cu ss ed
. T he co ur t men t io ne d t ha t t his c as e d ea lt wi th com pe ti n g " oth er i n su ra n ce " c l au se s i

n pol i ci es con cu rre n tl y h el d b y an i n su re d a n d n oted i ts hol di ng th at thes e coul

d can cel each othe

r out and may ren der co-i ns urers l i ab l e f or cover age. Foll owing f urther comm

entary, the court announced that i t would is sue i

ts ruli ng i n Novem ber 2008. On

Oc tobe r 24 , 20 08, pl

ai nti f f s f i l ed a m oti on to s upp l em en t the rec ord wi

th a di scus si on
o f Oh i o Ca sual ty , i n re spon se to the

oral argum en t. Howev er, nei

ther p l ai ntif f provi ded the court wit h a co py o f t he Ha r leys ville po licy. On No vember 1 7, 200 8, t he t rial co ur t issued its memo ra ndum o pinion and or der gr ant ing Cent ra l's mot ion fo r su mmary judgment . T he co ur t discu ssed t he ca ses c ited by plaintiffs, alo ng wit h t heir r eliance o n t he I lli nois t ar get ed t ende r r ule, and fo und t hem to be inapp os ite a nd in applic abl e to t he i nstant f acts. Instead, again

noting that i

t was "undi sputed" that t he contract between Ri

ver Vi ll age and F irst Ch

oice was " compl

etely sile nt regardin

g the type of i

nsuran ce, i.e. exce ss o r p rimary, First Cho ice [ha d] t o p ro vide, " and t hat t her e wa s no ot her agr eement req ui ri ng tha t the Centr al pol i cy be pri mary , th e c ourt h

el d that the " unam

bi guou s l an gua ge " of paragraph 4.b.2) provi din g that prim

ary cove rage was to be triggered onl y i f stated by wri

tt en contract rend

ered th e Ce ntral pol i cy ex ces s to the Ha

rl eysv i l l e pol i cy . Ac cordi

ngl y , the c ourt den i ed pl ai n ti f f s' moti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t.No. 1-08- 3529

7

Plaint iff s filed a mot ion fo r r eco nsider at ion. Att aching fo r t he first t ime a co py of t he Har leysvil le po licy, the y arg ued t hat t he t rial co ur t misapplied t he I lli nois t ar get ed t ende r r ule and that it shoul d consider the lan guage of the Harl

ey svi ll e poli cy , sin ce i ts relev ance was only rais ed du ri n g oral argu m en t b y th e c our t. H owev er , the tr

i al cou rt f oun d th at i t wou l d b e i n appr opri ate to consider the policy

as i t was not newly

dis covered evi

dence. The court stated t hat it ha d "basi cally begged" pl

ai ntif fs to provide i

t with a copy

of the Harley svi

ll e poli cy , which i

t had ma de clear dur ing o ra l arg ument and in it s wr itt en de cision w as "p er t inent" and " ver y relevant " t o t he i n sta n t ca us e. Noti n g th at p l ai n ti f f s " h ad con trol of ev i den ce th at [ th ey

] d ec i de d n

ot to s ub m i t" for str ategic and tact ical

purpo ses, the co urt concluded it could not co nsider it now and, t hus, denied t heir mo t ion. AN AL YSIS As no t ed a bove , R iver V ill age and H ar leysvil

le app eal fro m bot h t he t rial co ur t 's No ve mbe r17 , 20 08 o r de rgr an t ing Ce nt r al' s mo t io n fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt ( an d d en ying t he ir
mo t io n fo rsa me) an d t he co ur t 's d en ial o f t he ir mo t io n fo rr ec o nsid er at io n. We ad dr es s e ac h in t ur n. I. Cro ss- Mo t ions fo r S ummary Jud gment Sum mary j udg men t i s p rope r wh en the pleadi ng s, a f f i da vi ts, d ep osi ti ons an d a dm i ss i ons of
re co rd , c ons t ru ed s t rict ly against t he moving p ar t y, sho w t hat t her e is no genu ine issue a s t o a ny
ma terial fact an d that t he m

ovin g party i s enti

tled to judgm

ent as a m atter of law. See Hall v. Henn , 20 8 Ill. 2d 325 , 32 8 (2 003 ); Mo rr is v. Ma r gu lis , 197 Il l . 2d 28, 3 5 (200 1). Wh

il e this reli ef has b een cal

le d a "drastic m

easure," i t is an appropriate to ol to empl

oy i n the ex pedi tiousNo. 1-08- 3529

1 W e do wish, howev er , to n ote f or th e r ec ord th at th i s l i n e of ca se s, b eg i

n n i n g w i th Lon don , has been cal

led i nto q uestion and, in som

e cases, rejected by sev

eral Ill in ois court s. 8 disposition of a lawsui

t in whi ch " 'the righ

t o f the m oving party i s clear and f

ree from doubt. ' " Mo rr is , 197 Ill . 2d at 35, quo ting Purt il l v . Hess , 111 Ill . 2d 229, 240 (1986) . A ppe l l aterev

i ew of a trial court 's grant of summ ary j udgment is de novo . See Ha ll , 208 Ill . 2d at 328; accord Rich v. Pri nc i pal Li f e In su ran ceCo. , 226 Ill . 2d 359, 370 (2007)
. Pl ai ntif f s f i rst con tend that the tria l court erred

i n gr an tin g Cen tral 's motion f or sum mary judgm ent and denyi

ng theirs because i

t is obvious t hat Central was required to pro vide defense and inde mnif

icat ion fo r River Village in the Ro che litiga t ion. The y cite a ser ies o f co nst ru ct ioncontract insuran

ce cases, i ncl udin g Institute of London Un

derwriters v. Hartford Fi

re Insurance Co. , 234 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 70 (1992 ), Bi

tumi nous Casual

ty Corp. v. Royal

Insuranc e Co. of Am

erica , 301 Il l . Ap p. 3d 72 0 (199 8), A l ca

n U ni ted , In c. v . W es t Bend

Mu tua l In su ran ce Co. , 303 Ill . App. 3d 72 (1999), and Joh

n B urns C ons

tructi on C o. v . In

dian a In su ran ceCo. , 189 Il

l . 2d 570 (2000 ), i n w hi ch i ns ureds who ma i ntai ne d concurre

nt i ns uran ce pol i ci es wi th m ul tip l e i ns urers were l egal l y ab l e to appoi

nt wh i ch i ns urer w oul d provi de de f

en se a nd i nde m ni f i cation upon

a loss. Fol l owi ng the se , pl ai nti f f s a rgue that thei

r tar ge ted ten de r to Ce ntr al proh i bi ts a ny con si de rati on of the "other in

surance" excess

provisi on found i

n paragraph 4.b .2) of the Central policy and, thus , that Ce

ntral can not esc ape l

i ab i l i ty. Pla int iffs a r e c o rr ec t in t he ir g en er al d es cr ipt io n o f t he t ar ge t ed t en de rrule an d in t he ir ci tation to the cases m

entione d. 1 The targeted t ender doctrine a ll ows an i nsured wh

o is covered b y m ul ti pl e a n d c on cu rre n t i n su ra n ce pol i ci es to s el ec t, or " tar

ge t," wh i ch i n su re r he w an

ts toNo. 1-08- 3529

9

defen d and i ndem nify hi m regardi ng a speci fi c cl ai m. See Lon

don , 2 34 I ll. App. 3d a t 78- 79. The insure d es sent ially

can c hoo se w hich insure r a mong his sever al co -insur er s will part icipat e in the cl ai m a gai nst hi m;he can el ect one insurer over another, or even deactiv ate coverage with an in surer he previ

ously selected in

order t o inv

oke excl usi ve coverage wi

th another. See Lon

don , 234 Ill . A pp. 3d a t 78- 79;se e al so Al

can , 303 Ill . App. 3d at 83. This al lows an in sured who has pai d for m

ulti ple coverage to pro tect his i

nterests, nam

el y, keepi ng f uture premi

ums low, opt im izin g loss h is to ry an d preventi ng poli cy cancel la tion am ong the in surers he ch

ooses. See Lon don , 234 Ill . App. 3d at 78-79; accord Ci nc i nn ati Cos . v . W es t Am

eri ca n I ns ura nc e C o. , 183 Il l . 2d 317 , 326 (1 998). In a n e f f ort to o verri de thi s ri

ght of the i ns ured to ch

oose am ong c o-in sure rs, i ns urers dev el ope d " oth er

i n su ra n ce " ex ce ss

pr ov i si on s i n th ei r p oli ci es . Th es e p rov i si on s a ttem pt to
re n der oth

er wise pri mar y i n su ra n ce as ex ce ss ov er an y oth er col l ec ti b l e i n su ra n ce , m ost of ten wi th st at ement s in the po licy that dec lare t he insur er 's co ver age t o be exce ss o ver any ot her valid and coll ectib le in surance av

ai la ble to t he i

nsured. See Progressive Insuran ce Co. v. Uni

versal Ca sual ty Co. , 347 I ll . App. 3d 10 , 20 (2 004) . In such i nstances, the "o ther insurance" excess pr ovisio n re quir es t he insur ed t o e xhaus t t he po licy l imi t s o f the ot her co -insur er s befo re being ab l e to trigg er a de f

en se a nd i nde m ni f i cation duty

i n that i ns urer. Se e, e.g. , Pr og re ssive , 34 7 I ll. App. 3d at 20. I n t he en su ing ba t t le b et we en t he do ct r ine o f t ar ge t ed t en de rus ed by an insu r ed t o o bt ain his select ed p rimary co ver age and t he ap plicat ion o f "ot her insura nce" exce ss p ro visions u sed by insure rs t o invo ke o nly excess c ove ra ge, t he qu est ion ar os e as t o w hich sho uld p re vail. As in t heNo. 1-08- 3529

10

seri es of cas es plai

ntif fs here ci te, o ur court s hav

e hel d that, when an i

nsured h as m ai ntain ed concurrent prim

ary i nsuran ce am ong mul tiple i nsurers, the presen

ce of an "other ins

urance"
exce ss prov i si on i n on e i ns ure r' s p ol i cy doe s n ot, i n a nd of i tse l f , ov erc ome the i

ns ure d' s ri gh

t of target ed tender. See Jo hn Bur ns , 18 9 Il l . 2d at 5 78 ( "oth

er i ns ura nc e" prov i si on a l one doe s n ot de f ea t i ns ure d' s ri gh

t to targ et te nd

er d ef en se to one pa rti cul ar i ns ure r am ong cl as s of pri marycoin surers), citi

ng Al can , 30 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 82
- 83 ( in sit ua t io n w he r e o ne is ins ur ed by mu lt iple i ns ure rs on pri mary base s, i ns ure d' s ri gh

t to choose

or not to ch

oose certai n i ns ure r' s p arti ci pa ti on in cl ai m i s "param ount"), and Bi

tumi nous , 30 1 I ll. A pp . 3d at 72 5- 26 ( insu r ed ca n k no win gly f oreg o as sista

nc e f rom one pri mary i ns ure r i n f av or of req ue sti ng excl us i ve covera gef rom di f f eren t pri mary co-i ns urer, de spi

te "other i ns uran ce" claus e i

n that i ns urer' s pol i cy ). Again, t he co mmon and d et er minative element shar ed by t hese cas es is t hat , in ea ch, t he i ns ura nc e a t i ss ue --th at hel d by the i ns ure d a nd prov i de d by hi s m ul ti ple i ns ure rs --ori gi na ted f rom pr imary po licies. I n ot her wo rd s, a ll the insur er s st oo d in t he sa me po sitio n wit h re spe ct t o t he po t ent ial dut y of de fense a nd indemnificat ion o wed t o t he insur ed. It is in this sit uat ion, wher e t he
co ncur re nt multiple p olicies he ld ar e pr imary po licies, t hat t he t ar get ed t ende r r ule pr evails and allo ws t he insu r ed t o se lec t wh ich insu r er will d efe nd an d in de mnify him. Ho we ve r , t his is no t alw ays t he ca se . Re ce nt ly, o ur co ur t s, inc lud ing o ur st at e s up r eme
co ur t , r eco gnized t hat a mark edly different situ at ion o ccu rs w hen an insu re d is co ver ed by mul tiple i nsurers provi

din g dif feren t t ype s of coverage. That i s, polici es concurrentl y h el d by an in sured are not alway

s all pri ma ry; an i nsured m ay hold pri ma ry i nsuran ce from one i nsurer an d, at t he sa me t ime, ex ce ss co ve r ag e fr o m an o t he r . I n t his in st an ce , wh en t he insu r er s d o no t st an d inNo. 1-08- 3529

11

the sam e positi on with res

pect to a potential

duty of coverage, our court s hav e cl early hel d that an in sured cann

ot use his targeted t ender right to choose to im pose a coverage duty on an in surer wi th an "oth er i n su ra n ce " ex ce ss

pr ov i si on i n i ts p oli cy to th e ex cl

us i on of oth er co- i n su re rswi th whi ch h e hol ds prim

ary pol ic ie s. See Kaj im

a Construction Servi

ces, Inc. v. St. Paul F ire & Ma ri ne In su ran ceCo. , 227 Il

l . 2d 102 , 117 (2 007); see , e.g. , Stat e Automobi le Mutual In surance Co. v . Ha bi tat C ons tructi on C o. , 377 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 28 1 (200 7). In Ka jima , general

contracto r Kaj im

a entered i

nto a subcontract with Mi dwestern Steel Fabr icat or s, I nc. , w hich req uire d Midw est er n t o a dd Ka jim a as an ad dit ional insur ed o n t he
co mmercial gene ra l li

ability insuranc e po licy i

t held wit h St . P aul. Midwe st er n did so , o bt aining
an um brel la , or excess, poli

cy for Kaj im

a; K aj im a, mean whi le , retained i

ts own prim

ary i nsuran ce with i ts insurer, Tokio Marin

e and F ire Insurance Com pany . When

an em ploy ee was i nj ured at the proj ec t si te a nd su ed Kaj i ma, K aj i ma m ad e a targ ete d te nd

er to Mi dw es tern

an d St. Pau l f or def en se a nd i nde m ni ty, ra ther th an to Tokio. Citin g the same cases plain

tiff s reference i

n the in stant cau se , o ur sup re me co ur t in Ka jima specif ical ly noted that no ne of these were "on po in t" because they did n

ot in volve ex cess in surance pol

ic ie s, such as

the umb rell a poli cy Mi dwestern had obtai

ned f or Kaji ma . See Ka

jima , 227 Ill . 2d at 107-12 ( exam in in g Lon don , Bi tumi nous , Al can and Jo hn Bur ns and statin g that "our pr ior dec isions a ddr essing t ar get ed t ende r a re not ent irely on p oint , a s t hos e ca ses d id no t involve
ex ces s i ns uran ce pol i ci es" but on

l y conc urren t pri mary pol i ci es). R

athe r, as th e court m ade c l ear, thi s s i tua ti on provi de d a

dif f ere nt c onte xt- -an i ns ure d (K aj i ma) h ol di ng dif f ere nt ty pe s of
conc urren t in sura nc es, i.e. , prim

ary (f rom Tokio) and exc ess (St. Paul's umb rell a poli cy ). SeeNo. 1-08- 3529

12

Ka jima , 227 Il

l . 2d at 11 2 (exam

i ni ng c aus e "i

n the con text of pri mary and exces s i

ns uran ce" ). The issue be came, t hen, whet her t he t ar get ed t ende r r ule wo uld st ill do minate a n exce ss insur er 's righ t t o force exha

ustion of a

ll prim ary i nsuran ces bef ore its duty would b e triggered. See Ka jima , 227 Ill . 2d at 113. Our suprem

e court answered this question i

n the n egative. It found that t here i s an
evi den t di sti nc tion between pri mary and exces s i

ns uran ce: exc ess i ns uran ce " provi desa se cond

ary l ev el of c overa

ge" and i s triggere d onl

y af ter the l i m i ts of p ri mary i ns uran ce h av e b een ex ha usted. Ka jima , 227 Il

l . 2d at 11 4 (i

n c ontras t to prim

ary i ns uran ce, e xc ess i ns uran ce pre m i ums are l ower pr ecisely beca use t his seco ndar y cove ra ge is no t t o be co llecte d unles s and unt il the limi t s o f the insure d's p rimary co ver age ar e exha ust ed) . Wit h t his dist inctio n, t hen, t he co ur t re fused t o e xt end the targeted t ender doctrine to all ow an i nsured to request t he appl ic ation of an

excess policy bef ore he exh

austs al l h is prim ary cove rage: "[ W ]ef i n d th at th e b ette r ru l e is th at * ** tar ge ted ten der c an b e a pp l i ed to ci rcumstances whe

re concurrent prim

ary i nsuran ce coverage exi

sts for addi

tional i ns ureds , but to the e

xten t that def en se a nd i nde m ni ty c osts ex

cee d the pri mary li mi ts of the targeted insurer, the desel ected insurer or insurers'

prim ary pol ic y must answer for the loss bef ore t he i nsured can seek coverage under an excess policy." Ka

jima , 227 Il

l . 2d at 11 6-17. A cc ordi n gl y , de sp i te i ts ta rg ete d ten der to S t. Pa

ul , K aj i ma w as f i rs t re qui re d to ex h au st th e l i m i ts of it s pr imary po licy with its o wn insur er , T ok io, befo re it co uld lega lly invok e co ver age unde r t he St. Paul policy . See Ka

jima , 227 Il

l . 2d at 11 7.No. 1-08- 3529

13

Our ow n co ur t app lied t he sa me legal pr inciples in St at e A ut o mo bile , wh ere we , too, were confronted wi

th an i nsured h oldi ng concurrent i

nsuran ce of va ryi ng degrees. There, gen

eral contracto r Habi

tat and subcontracto r Central B uil din g & Preservation agreed that Central Bu i l di n g w oul d add Ha b i tat a s a n addi ti on al i n su re d on i ts c om merci al gen eral l i ab i l i ty pol i cy wi th Stat e Automobi

le Mutual In surance Com

pany ; Hab itat, mean

whi le , retained pri

ma ry i nsuran ce with i ts own insurer, Pennsy

lv ani a General Insuranc e Compan

y. The Stat e Auto polic

y, though not an exc ess insu ra nce u mbrella po licy as in Ka jima , cont ain

ed an "other insurance" excess provi sion wh

i ch a ttempted to render i

t an excess

poli cy . That provi sion stated: "Any co ver age pr ovid ed he re unde r sha ll be excess ove r a ny ot her valid and collecti ble insurance availab le to t he additi onal i nsured whether primary, excess,
co nt ing en t , o ro n a ny o t he rba sis un les s a co nt r ac t sp ec ifica lly re qu ire s t ha t t his insura nce be non- co nt ribut or y and o r p rimary o r yo u r equ est t hat it ap ply on a non-cont ributory and or pr im ary basi s." St at e A ut o mo bile , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 283. Du ri ng con stru cti on, an em pl oyeewa s i

njure d a t the proj ec t si te a nd su ed Ha bi tat. Ins tea d of tur ni ng to its own prim

ary i nsurer, Habitat made a tar geted t ender upon St ate Aut o for defense
an d i nd em ni f i ca ti on. State

A uto re j ec ted thi s a nd sough t a d ec l ara

tory j udg men t tha t i t wa s n ot
r eq uir ed t o pr o vid e c o ve r ag e u nt il Ha bit at ex ha us t ed it s p r imar y po licy w it h P en nsylv an ia Gen eral, si nc e the re wa s nev er a re quest to make i ts cove rage n oncon trib utory or pri

mary pursuant to t he "other i

nsuran ce" provi si on. Habi

tat r esponded that the Stat e Auto polic y was in deed prim ary b ecause of the targeted tender rule.No. 1-08- 3529

2 Because i

t was unclear in

the record, t he cause

was rem anded to determin

e whether Habi tat had any

prim ary i nsuran ce "ava il abl e to" it. See St at e A ut o mo bile , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 293 ("the record d i scl osesno i nf orma tion ab out any

such pol i cy "). 14 Upon revi ew, we

agree d wi

th State A

uto. We, too , exam

in ed the sam

e seri es of cas es ci ted by pla in tif fs here an d dis cussed the targeted tender rule. See St at e A ut o mo bile , 37 7 I ll. App. 3d at 293. However, citin g Ka jima 's d ist inc t io n be t we en pr imar y and ex ce ss po licie s he ld
co nc ur r en t ly, w e r eit er at ed it s ho ldin g t ha t an insu r ed ca nno t se lec t ive ly t en de ra d efe nse t o his
excess in surer whi le prim ary cove rage remai

ns un exh austed. See St at e A ut o mo bile , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 2 93 . Acc ordi

n gl y , w e c on cl

ud ed th at H ab i tat c oul d n ot tar ge t ten der i ts d ef ense to Sta te Au t o wh er e t he St at e A ut o "p o licy's 'o t he rinsu r an ce ' p r o visio n st at es t he po licy is t o ap ply in 'excess over any

ot her val id an d collectible i

nsurance avai

lab le to' Habitat." St at e A ut o mo bile , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 293. 2 Turni ng to t he i

nstant cause, pl

ai ntif fs ' en tire argum

ent rests on the concl

usi on, which they
co ns ist en t ly mai nt ain o n a pp ea l, t ha t t he Ce nt r al p o licy i s a pr imar y o ne an d t ha t , ac co r di ng ly, Central and Harl ey svi ll e were concurrent prim

ary co-i nsurers of R

iv er Vil la ge . Up o n t his pr es um pti on , they as se rt t ha t t he ir t ar ge t ed t en de ro f t he Ro ch e lit iga t io n t o Ce nt r al s ho uld rule t heir d efense and inde mnif icat ion. We who lehear t edly disag re e, as it is quit e clea r t hat t he situ at ion at issue he re do es no t involve co ncur re nt pr imary insure rs a s in Lon don and it s pr og eny but , r at her , c onc ur re nt pr imary and exc ess insu ra nce a s in Ka jima and St at e A ut o mo bile
. As no t ed e ar lier, t he Ce nt ra l po licy cont ains an "o t her insura nce" exce ss p ro vision, namely, pa ra gr aph 4 .b. 2) , w hich is simi lar t o t hat fou nd in St at e A ut o mo bile . Agai n, thatNo. 1-08- 3529

15

provision m

andatesthat Ce

ntral 's i ns uran ce is ex ces s ove r: "A ny other valid and collectible in surance av

ai la ble to [ Ri ver Vi ll age] whether prim ary, excess, contingent or o n any ot her basi s unless

a contra ct spec ifically requires that this insur

ance be either primar

y or primary and noncontr ibuting ." (Em phasi s ad ded.) T he wo r ds in t his p r o visio n a r e c lea ran d u na mbig uo us : u nle ss t he r e is a c o nt r ac t sp ec ifica lly
re quir ing t hat Cent ra l's insura nce be pr imary, its co ver age of River Village is o nly excess o ver and above an y other i nsuran ce Ri ver Vi ll age would b e abl

e to co ll ect in the even t o f a l oss. See Am erica n Fam il y M utual Ins urance Co. v. Fisher Dev

el opmen t, Inc. , 391 Ill . App. 3d 521, 525 (2009) (if the words in

an i nsuran ce poli cy are cl ear and un

am bi guous, a court mus

t aff ord t hem their pl ai n, ordina ry an d popular m

eani ng); acc ord Cru

m & F ors ter M an

ag ers Corp . v . Re sol

ution Trust Co rp. , 156 Il

l . 2d 384 , 391 (1 993). The record makes

cl ear that Harley

svi ll e has al ready pa id out on, and compl

etely satisf ie d, t he Ro che litiga t ion as River V ill age 's pr imary insure r. It did so upo n set t lement o f tha t suit , a nd this i s why

Harley svi ll e was permi

tt ed to join

the instant action as a part y pl ain tiff . From this, t he n, t he r e c an be no qu es t io n t ha t t he Ha r leys ville p o licy c o mpr ise d " o t he rva lid a nd co llec t ible insura nce" available t o R iver V ill age , a s st at ed in pa ra gr aph 4 .b. 2) . I n add itio n, it re mains undi sputed, and pl ai

ntif fs adm it on appeal , that t he onl

y c ontract at issue

here--that between Ri

ver Village and First Cho ice which se t up t he Ce nt ra l insuranc e po licy--is co mplet ely sil ent re gar ding the type of i

nsuran ce (prim ary or exce ss) Fi

rst Choice was

to obtain f

or Rive r Vil la ge. Therefore, the re i s n o con tract req ui ri ng tha t Centr al 's i ns ura nc e c ove ri ng Ri ve r Vi l l ag e b e " pri

mary orNo. 1-08- 3529

16

prim ary an d noncontrib

uting." Pursuan

t t o paragraph 4.b.2), then, without such "a contract specifi cally " requi rin g that t he i

nsuran ce Fi rst Choice was

to obtain f

rom Cen tral f or Rive r Vil la ge be pri ma ry, the Cen

tral poli cy is an ex cess i nsuran ce poli cy to the prim

ary pol ic y R iv er Vil la ge he l d wi th Ha rl eysv i l l e. Thi s is f urth er s upp orted by the en dors em en t an d c erti f i ca te of i ns ura nc e that w ere

pa rt of Cent ra l's po licy cover age of River Village, also fou nd in t he r eco rd . As w e no t ed e ar lier, t he endo rse ment r eite ra t ed p ar agr aph 4 .b. 2) of t he Ce nt ra l po licy, using t he sa me langua ge fo und there to warn Ri

ver Vi ll age that any

coverage under the polic y " shal l b e exces s" over any

ot her val id a nd col le ctibl

e i nsuran ce avai la ble to it in case of a l

oss unless a contract exi sted stating that this in surance would be pri

ma ry. Thus , the sam

e condi tion preceden

t t o ful l pri ma ry coverage , namely, a co nt ra ct dict at ing t his, wa s clear ly stat ed fo r a sec ond t ime in the po licy. Mor eo ver , t he certif ic ate of in surance ac compan

yi ng the poli

cy stated t hat Ri

ver Vi ll age would b e considered a "p r imar y ad dit io na l insu r ed if re qu ire d b y wr it t en co nt r ac t . " Ag ain , t he co nd it io n p r ec ed en t t o full pri mary cove rage i s cl ear a nd, i n the ab sen

ce of such a wri tten con tract na m i ng i t a pri mary insured, Cent ral's policy

coverage o f Ri

ver Vil lage was onl

y ex cess. Fro m this, it bec omes obvio us t hat t he t ar get ed t ende r d oc t rine u sed in Lon don an d i ts progen y , al l of w hi ch i nv olv ed con current pri

mary i ns urers , i s i na ppl i cab l e to the i

nstant ca use . Ra th er , R i v er Vi l l ag e m ai n tai n ed con cu rre n t i n su ra n ce of v ar y i n g d eg re es : p ri mar y cov erag e wi th Harley svi ll e and excess coverage with Central. Therefore, and co ntrary to plai ntif fs' assertions, t he le ga l pr ec ed ent o f Ka

jima and St at e A ut o mo bile i s m ore on poi

nt wi th the i nstant ca use . Th ere f ore, wef i nd no e rror i n th e tri al cou rt' s g ran t of su m mary j udg men t i n f av or ofNo. 1-08- 3529

17

Central and i ts deni al of plai ntif fs ' m ot ion f or same. Pursuant to t he ab ove anal ys is , the Central pol i cy requi red R i ver Vil l age to f

i rst ex ha ust the pri mary i ns uran ce i t hel d wi th Ha rl eysv i l l e b ef ore it could trigger the excess coverage i

t held w ith C entral. Bec ause the Roche l iti gation was
com pletel y sati sf i ed wi thi n the l i m i ts of th e Har l eysv i l l e pol i cy, there rem ai ne d no c l ai

m i n exc ess . Acco rd ingly, the Cent ra l po licy was no t t rigg er ed, and p laintiffs' at t empt at t ar get ed t ende r a nd sui t for reim bursem ent from Central mus t fail. See Ka

jima , 227 Il

l . 2d at 11 6-17; see , e.g. , Sta te A uto , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 293. II. M oti on f or Re con si

de rati on Plaint iff s' sec ond , a nd final, co nt ent ion o n re view is t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in denying t heir mo t ion fo r r eco nsider at ion. The y insist t hat t he co ur t sho uld no t have igno re d t he Har leysvil le po licy they submitt ed w ith t heir mo t ion bec aus e its re levance was only ra ised fo r t he firs t t ime d ur ing o r al a r gu men t an d o nly by t he co ur t it se lf an d n o t t he pa r t ies
. T he y fur t he rcla im that, had the court exam

in ed the poli

cy , it would h

ave rul ed i n thei r fav or sinc e that polic

y contai ne d an "other i ns uran ce" ex ces s cl

aus e tha t woul d ha

ve rendered Cen tral a pri mary i ns urer. General ly , the denial

of a m ot ion to reconsi der is

reviewed de novo . See Co mpt on v. Cou ntr y Mu tua l In su ran ceCo. , 382 Ill . App. 3d 323, 330 (2008) (t hi s standard appl ie s when de nia l is ba se d o n t r ial c o ur t 's a pp lica t io n o f ex ist ing law )
. Ho we ve r , wh er e, as he r e, t he de nia l is ba se d o n ne w ma t t er s, su ch as ad dit io na l fac t s o rne w a r gu men t s t ha t we r e n o t pr ev io us ly pr es en ted du ri n g th e c our se of pr oce ed i n gsl eadi n g to th e order b ei

n g c h al l en ge d, we a reto
em ploy an ab use of di scretion standard of review. See Delgatto v. Brandon Associa tes, Ltd. , 131 Ill . 2d 183, 195 (1989); accord Com pton , 382 Ill . App. 3d at 330.No. 1-08- 3529

18

T he pu r po se o f a mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er is t o br ing t o t he t r ial c o ur t 's a t t en t io n ne wly dis co ve r ed ev ide nc e n o t av aila ble at t he t ime o f t he firs t he ar ing , ch an ge s in t he law , o rer r o r s in the previous appli

cation of ex

is ting l aw to t he f

acts at hand. See Gardner v. Nav is tar International

Transportat ion C orp. , 213 Ill . App. 3d 242, 248 (1991); accord W ei dner v . Mi

dc on Corp. , 32 8 Il

l . A pp. 3d 1 056 , 10 61 ( 200 2). A cc ordi ngl y , a tr i al cou rt i s w el l wi thi n i ts d i screti on to de n y such a m oti on an d i gn orei ts c on ten ts w h en i t con tai n s m ate rial th at w as av ai l ab l e p rior to the heari ng at is sue but nev

er presented. See Wei

dner , 3 28 I ll. App. 3d a t 106 1- 62 ( t rial co ur t 's deni al of m ot ion to reconsi der was proper because proponents presented n o new evi dence that
wasnot avail ab l e wh

en court ruled on

prior motion, n

or di d they

rai se c l ai m of cha nge i n l aw); Gardner , 21 3 I ll. A pp . 3d at 24 8 ( t r ial c o ur t wa s ju st ified in d isr eg ar din g c o nt en t s o f affid av it atta ch ed to moti on to rec ons i de r s um mary j udg m en t rul i ng an d i n d en y i ng tha t moti on s ol el

y on ba si s tha t thi s m aterial wasav ail ab l e pri

or to heari

ng on that m otion but n ev er pre sen

ted). Li tigants sh ould not be al

lowed "to stand mute, lose a motion, an d then f rantical ly gather evidentiary m

aterial to show t hat the co urt erred in i ts ruling." Gardner , 213 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 248. Ra t he r , "t he int er es t s o f fina lit y an d e ffic ien cy require that t he trial court s not conside

r such latet en de r ed ev ide nt iar y mat er ial, no mat t er wh at t he co nt en t s t he r eo f may be
. " ( E mph as is in origi na l .) Gardner , 213 Ill . App. 3d at 248-49. A t the outs et, w e f

i nd tha t plai nti f f s a re i nc orre ct i n th ei r s tate men

t tha t the rel evan ceof t he Ha rleysville policy was ra ised o nly during o ra l arg ument at t he hea ring o n t he cr os s-mo t ions fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt an d o nly by t he co ur t it se lf an d n o t t he pa r t ies
. Fir st , t he r ec o r d r ev ea ls that during discovery

in the li tigation b etween Cen

tral and R iv er Vil la ge, Central a sked Ri

verNo. 1-08- 3529

19

Vi l l ag e to p rovi dethe

na me of an yone wh o con duc ted an i nv es ti ga ti on r el ati ve to i ts c l ai m f or in surance un

der any poli cy ot her than C entral' s and f or a copy of any

in surance pol

ic ie s Ri ver Village held fo r w or k pe rfo rmed at t he pr ojec t site . T his wo uld clea rly have include d t he Harley svi ll e poli cy . However, in stead of providi ng a copy of thi s poli

cy , Riv er Vil la ge obj ected
an d r efu se d t o pr o du ce it , cla iming t ha t it wa s " irr ele va nt an d imma t er ial, " " un r ela t ed t o t his l i tig ati on," a

nd " i nadm i ssi bl e" b ef ore the c ourt. Next, durin

g the heari

ng on the cross-m

ot ions , the trial

court comm

unicated to the parties the le gal prin ci ple that, if the

Harley svi ll e poli cy had an "other ins

urance" ex

cess provi si on si

mi la r t o t he o ne in the Cent ra l po licy, the se c ou ld canc el eac h ot her ou t and R iver V ill age and Har leysvil le might have a valid lega l basis for suit aga inst C ent ra l to re co ver defens e and indemnifi cat ion exp ense s fro m the R oc he litigat ion. The co ur t made no t e t hat t his was t he ho lding o f Oh

i o Ca sual ty . I ncident ally, this p rinciple is also st at ed in Pr og re ssive , a case whi ch pla in tif fs ci ted thro ughout t hi s litigation. See Pr og re ssive , 347 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 20 ("wh ere pr i mary polici es contain dueli

ng excess ' ot her in

surance' clauses, they cancel each other o ut and any l

oss
may be prorated b etween c omp an i es a s if they were co-pri mary i ns urers "). Pl

ai ntif f s, howev er, overlooked this

le gal argumen t in thei r fav or and admi

tt ed to t he trial

court that t hey

never provi ded a copy of th e Har l eysv i l l e pol i cy to Centra

l , nor to the c ourt its elf

. Indeed, th

e rec ord sh owstha t the y con ti nu ed to i ns i st, e ve n a f ter th e tri al cou rt deman de d to kn ow w hy the y ha d n ot provided i

t t o Central or at t he i

nstant heari

ng, that the poli cy

was "i rrelev ant" beca use Ri ver Village had made a t ar get ed t ende r t o C ent ra l. Aga in, plaint iff s did no t submit a co py of t he po licy.No. 1-08- 3529

20

Fina lly, t he r ec o r d r ev ea ls t ha t , be fo r e t he da t e o n w hic h t he t r ial c o ur t ha d s t at ed it wo uld
r en de rit s d ec isio n o n t he cr o ss - mo t io ns, pla int iffs file d a mo t io n t o su pp leme nt t he r ec o r d in
re sp o nse t o t he c o ur t 's me nt io n o f Oh i o Ca sual ty and i ts appl i cab i l i ty to the i nstant ca use . However, instead of attachin g a copy of the

Harley svi ll e poli cy to their m

ot ion a t t hi s tim e, pl ai nti f f s a gai n f ai l ed to do s o. Ul

ti mate l y , i t wa s n ot un ti l af ter th e c ourt ren

de red i ts dec i si on on t he cr o ss - mo t io ns, mak ing cle ar in it s w r it t en memo r an du m t ha t t he su bmiss io n o f t he Ha r leys ville po licy m ight have c hange d it s ver dict , t hat plaint iff s for t he first t ime pre sent ed t he po licy and argue d i ts appl i cab i l i ty b ef ore the c ourt. From all this, we fi

nd that t he trial court did not abuse i ts discretion in den

yi ng plai ntif fs' mot ion fo r r eco nsider at ion. Unde niably, plaintiffs wer e we ll aware of t he impor t ance and relevan ce of the Harleys

vill e policy in relation to t hi s li

tigation--if n

ot during the pretr ial

pro cess, t he n su r ely a t t he o r al a r gu men t o n t he cr o ss - mo t io ns f o rsu mmar y jud gme nt an d mo st de finit ely bef ore t he trial

court rendered i

ts decis ion on those m

ot ions . Plai

ntif fs had at l east three opportuni tie s i n w hi ch to subm i t the Ha rl eysv i l l e pol i cy, but c onsi

sten tly chose n ot to pres en

t it. T he Ha r leys ville p o licy c an ha r dly b e c o nsid er ed ne wly d isc o ve r ed o rpr ev io us ly un av aila ble
ev ide nc e. As t he t r ial c o ur t st at ed in it s c o llo qu y du r ing t he mo t io n t o r ec o nsid er , it pr ac t ica lly "b eg ge d" pla int iffs s ev er al t imes t o su bmit t he po licy int o ev ide nc e a nd mad e it o bvio us t ha t it be lieve d t his e vid en ce wa s " ve ry re lev an t " t o t he iss ue s a t ha nd
. Pla int iffs h ad co nt r o l o f t his evi dence bu t de ci de d, purs ua nt to th ei r s trate gy, not to su

bm i t i t; u nf ortun ate l y , thi s b ac kf

i red on them as they chose to rem

ove f rom th e rec ord the e

vi den ce they l ater soug

ht to hav e the court analyze in t heir mo t ion t o r eco nsider . I t wo uld have been e rr one ou s for t he t rial co ur t t o ha veNo. 1-08- 3529

3 Plaint iff s also alleged in their mot ion fo r r eco nsider at ion t hat t he t rial co ur t misapplied t he law o f t ar ge t ed t en de r . While an as se r t io n o f t he misa pp lica t io n o f ex ist ing law is a pr o pe rba sis for such a motion (see Gardner , 21 3 Ill. App. 3d at 248 ; Wei dner , 328 Ill . App. 3d at 1061), we have a lread y conc luded t hat t he co ur t pr op er ly applied t he r ule in re aching it s de cision.

4 We n ot e for the record that, were we to have reverse d the trial court 's h oldi ng, Central pre sente d a

n a l tern ati ve cros s- appe al

as serti ng tri al cou rt er ror re ga rdi ng i ts p rev i ousde ci si

on fi ndi ng that River Vil

lage was an addi

tional i nsured under the Centr al poli cy. However, because we h av e af f i rmed thi s ca

use , we n eed n ot addres s Ce

ntral 's cross -appe al
. 21 al lowed them

, after standi

ng m ute and l osin

g their m ot ion, to then present the Harley svi ll e poli cy
an d a rgue u pon rec ons i de rati

on th at the c ourt' s dec i si

on to g ran t su m mary j udg men t i n f av or of Ce nt r al w as inc o rr ec t be ca us e t he co ur t di d n o t co ns id er t he pr o vis io ns o f t he Ha r leys ville po licy. The re for e, as p laintiffs simply failed t o e st ablish any gro und 3 en ti tl i n g th em to reconsi deration, we concl ude that the tr ia

l c ourt properly

and wi thin its sound discretion den

ie d t heir mo t ion. CONCLUSION Ac cordi ngl y , f or all the f oregoi ng r eas ons, we af

f i rm both th e j udgm en t of the tria l court gran tin g Cen tral 's cross -m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t (and den y i ng p l ai ntif f s'motion f or sam e),
and i ts j udgm en t den y i ng p l ai ntif f s'motion to recons i der. 4 Af fi rmed. TOOM IN, P.J., a

nd H OW SE, J., con

cur.No. 1-08- 3529

22 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ REPORTER O F DECISIO NS - ILLINOI S APP ELLATE COURT

(Front S heet to be Attached to Each Case)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Please use the following

form Ri

ver Vi ll age I, LLC, a/k/a Ri

ver Vi ll age, LLC, and H arley

svi ll e Lake States Insurance Com pan y , Plai

ntif fs-Appel lan ts and Cro ss-Appell

ees,

v. Central Insurance Compani es, De f en da n t-A pp el l ee an d C ros s- A

pp el l an t.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ No. 1-08-3529 Docket No. Appellate Court of Illinois COURT First District, FIFTH Division Opinion Filed November 20, 2009 (Give month, day and year)

__________________________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE JAMES FITZGERALD SMITH DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
JUSTICES TOOMIN, P.J., and HOWSE, J., concur.
Lower Court and Trial Judge(s) in form indicated in margin: APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. County; the Hon________ Judge Presiding. The Hon. JA MES EPSTEI

N , Ju dge pr es id in g.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Indic ate if attorney represents APPELL ANTS o r APPEL LEES and include attorney's of counsel. Indicate the word r FOR A PPELL ANTS NONE if no t represented. Joh n Doe , of C hi cago For A PPELL EES, : APP ELL ANTS: DOHE

RTY & PROG AR LL C, Chic ago , IL

Mary Jo G reene and Step

hanie W. W

einer

_________________________________ __No. 1-08- 3529

23 Smit h and S mith of Chi cago , APP ELL EE: LEA HY, EISENBE

RG & FRA

ENKEL , LTD ., Chicag

o, I L H eath Sherma

n

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ ( Joseph Brow

n, of co unsel ) Add attorney

s for thirdparty appel lants a

nd/o r appellees.