1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DISTRICT

GREAT AMERICAN E&S INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST 

COMPANY, as Trustee under Trust No. 

80002369166 dated September 10, 2015; 

BCL-LT BENEFICIARY, LLC; BCL 

HOME REHAB, LLC; BARNETT 

CAPITAL LIMITED; LOUIS BOWERS; 

and CHRISTINA BOWERS,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-02004

Honorable Martha M. Pacold

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND 

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Great American E&S Insurance Company (“Great American”), by its 

undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 55(b) and Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, hereby moves for an entry of default judgment against: (i) Chicago Title 

Land Trust Company, as Trustee under Trust No. 80002369166 dated September 10, 

2015; (ii) BCL-LT Beneficiary, LLC; (iii) BCL Home Rehab, LLC; and (iv) Barnett 

Capital Limited (together with Chicago Title Land Trust Company, BCL-LT 

Beneficiary, LLC and BCL Home Rehab, LLC, the “BCL Entities”), and for entry of 

final judgment against all defendants (the BCL Entities, and Louis Bowers and 

Christina Bowers. In support thereof, Great American states as follows.

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:607
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Underlying Lawsuit

On or about September 24, 2019, Defendants Louis Bowers and Christina 

Bowers (collectively, “the Bowers”) filed a lawsuit against the BCL Entities, among 

others, captioned Louis Bowers, et al. v. Chicago Title Land Trust Company, et al., 

Case No. 2019CH11018, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (“the Underlying 

Lawsuit”). See Docket 1, Exhibit A. According to the Underlying Lawsuit, in or 

around December 2017, the Bowers contracted to purchase residential property 

located at 3817 N. Wayne Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (“the Property”). See Docket 1, 

Exhibit A, ¶9. Prior to closing, the Bowers had an inspection performed, and the 

inspection allegedly noted evidence of water infiltration and possible mold. See

Docket 1, Exhibit A, ¶ 12. In October 2018, BCL Home Rehab, LLC, BCL-LT 

Beneficiary, LLC, and the Bowers entered into a Mutual Release and Settlement 

Agreement (“the Release”) in connection with costs incurred by the Bowers to 

investigate and remedy certain alleged problems at the Property. See Docket 1, 

Exhibit A, ¶24. The Release, however, allegedly still required BCL Home Rehab, 

LLC and BCL-LT Beneficiary, LLC to undertake warranty and other repair work. 

See Docket 1, Exhibit A, ¶24. The Bowers allege throughout the Underlying Lawsuit 

that the Property was replete with defects in the workmanship. Docket 1, Exhibit A, 

¶¶10, 12, 14, 16, 25 and 30. In August 2019, although the Property had not yet been 

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:608
3

fully repaired, the BCL Entities informed the Bowers that no more funds were 

available for repairs. See Docket 1, Exhibit A, ¶44. 

With respect to two of the three BCL Entities – BCL-LT Beneficiary, LLC and 

Barnett Capital Limited – the Underlying Lawsuit contains five Counts: (1) 

Rescission against Defendant BCL-LT Beneficiary, LLC; (2) Breach of Warranty

against Defendant BCL-LT Beneficiary, LLC; (3) Violations of the Illinois Consumer 

Fraud Act against Barnett Capital; (4) Negligence against Barnett Capital; and (5) 

Promissory Estoppel against Barnett Capital. See Docket 1, Exhibit A, pages 14-22. 

While the Bowers named BCL Home Rehab, LLC as a defendant, none of the counts 

were brought against BCL Home Rehab, LLC. See Docket 1, Exhibit A, pages 14-22.

B. The BCL Entities Failed to Answer or Otherwise Plead in 

Response to Great American’s Complaint, and Their Default Was 

Entered.

On March 27, 2020, Great American filed its Complaint for Declaratory 

Judgment. See Docket 1. None of the BCL Entities answered or otherwise pled within 

the time permitted by Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Great 

American moved for a default against the BCL Entities pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 55(a). See Dockets 25 & 37. On August 3, 2020, the Court entered 

the default of Chicago Title, and on January 4, 2021, this Court entered the default 

of the remaining BCL Entities. See Dockets 28 & 39.

More than two years have passed since entry of the BCL Entities’ default. The

BCL Entities have not appeared, and they have not contacted undersigned counsel 

with respect to this matter.

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:609
4

C. On March 1, 2022, The Court Ruled That Great American Has No 

Duty To Defend Or Indemnify The Defendants In The 

Underlying Suit.

On March 1, 2023, the Court entered an order (the “March 1, 2023 Order”) 

granting Great American’s unopposed motion for summary judgment (the “Great 

American Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment”), which the court construed as 

a motion for partial summary judgment against defendants Louis and Christina 

Bowers. See Docket Nos. 59, 65. In the March 1, 2023 Order, the Court stated that 

“Great American has no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants in the underlying 

suit.” March 1, 2023 Order, p. 4. 

D. Although The Underlying Lawsuit Has Been Dismissed Pursuant 

to a Settlement, The Tender and Demand For Performance 

Under the Policy Was Never Withdrawn.

On October 25, 2022 an Order of Dismissal was entered in the Underlying 

Lawsuit, dismissing the Underlying Lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a settlement 

(the “Order of Dismissal”). A copy of the Order of Dismissal is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A and was included in Great American’s Status Report. See Docket 66, 

Exhibit 1. To date, Great American has received no communication from any of the 

BCL Entities regarding the Underlying Lawsuit, apart from an initial tender of the 

lawsuit. However, neither settlement nor failure to communicate about the 

Underlying Lawsuit resolves this matter – the BCL Entities tendered the Underlying 

Lawsuit to Great American for a defense, and they never withdrew that tender and 

their demand for performance by Great American. The limitations period for those 

BCL Entities that are insured under the Policy to assert a claim arising from the

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:610
5

foregoing has not expired, and Great American accordingly needs the declaratory 

relief sought in its Complaint in this action.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Legal Standard – Default Judgment 

Rule 55 of the Federal Rules provides:

(a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment 

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise 

defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the 

clerk must enter the party's default.

(b) Entering a Default Judgment.

(1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain 

or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk--

on the plaintiff's request, with an affidavit showing the 

amount due--must enter judgment for that amount and costs 

against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing 

and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.

(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to 

the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be 

entered against a minor or incompetent person only if 

represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like 

fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a 

default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a 

representative, that party or its representative must be served 

with written notice of the application at least 7 days before the 

hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals--

preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial--when, to 

enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;

(B) determine the amount of damages;

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or

(D) investigate any other matter.

FED. R. CIV. P. 55.

Consistent with this rule, the Seventh Circuit has explained that: “There are 

two stages in a default proceeding: the establishment of the default, and the actual 

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:611
6

entry of a default judgment.” In re Catt, 368 F.3d 789, 793 (7th Cir. 2004). Once 

default has been established, the movant must apply to the Court for a default 

judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b). With respect to a default judgment, “the well-pleaded 

allegations of a complaint relating to liability are taken as true.” United States v. 

DiMucci, 879 F.2d 1488, 1497 (7th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, whereas here, the BCL 

Entities have already been defaulted (See Docket 39), Great American’s allegations 

in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (See Docket 1) should be taken as true. 

B. Legal Standard – Final Judgment 

When no further relief is possible on any parties’ claims, final judgment is 

entered. FED. R. CIV. P. 58(b)(1)(C); Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 

1020 (7th Cir. 2013) (“When a district court believes it is done with a case, it enters a 

final judgment under Rule 58.”). A decision is final if it ends the litigation on the 

merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment. 

Paganis v. Blonstein, 3 F.3d 1067, 1069 (7th Cir. 1993).

Courts have also explained that a final judgment must be complete and 

self-contained, and must “set forth the relief to which the prevailing party is entitled 

or the fact that the plaintiff has been denied all relief.” Id. To determine whether a 

judgment is final, the language of the judgment itself is controlling. Id.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Entry of Default Judgment Under Rule 55 Is Proper.

The Court entered the default of the BCL Entities. Specifically, in its order of 

August 30, 2020, the Court ordered:

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:612
7

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for

entry of default against Chicago Title Land Trust Company, as Trustee under 

Trust No. 80002369166 dated September 10, 2015 [25] is granted. The court 

hereby enters a default against Defendant Chicago Title Land Trust 

Company, as Trustee under Trust No. 80002369166 dated September 10, 

2015 for failure to timely appear, answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's 

complaint.

In its order of January 4, 2021, the Court ordered:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: No defendant 

objected to plaintiff's motion for entry of default [37]. Plaintiff's motion [37] is 

granted. Pursuant to Rule 55(a), the court hereby enters a default against 

defendants BCL−LT Beneficiary, LLC; BCL Home Rehab, LLC; and Barnett 

Capital Limited for failure to timely appear, answer or otherwise plead to 

plaintiff's complaint.

Thereafter, Great American sought the entry of default judgments against 

these entities, but the Court entered an order addressing the fact that the Bowers 

defendants had answered, and there was a risk of inconsistent judgments created. 

See Docket No. 50. Those concerns have been resolved by the Court’s order of March 

1, 2023. 

In the March 1st Order, the Court ruled on Great American’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment, which addressed Great American’s request for a declaratory 

judgment that the insurance policy it issued did not apply and Great American 

accordingly had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants in the underlying suit 

brought by the Bowers. The March 1st Order stated:

The coverage does not apply because there was no “occurrence” within the

meaning of the policy. Accordingly, Great American has no duty to defend or

indemnify the defendants in the underlying suit

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:613
8

*

Great American’s motion for partial summary judgment [59] against Louis

and Christina Bowers is granted.

Docket No. 65, p. 4.

In light of the fact that summary judgment was entered against the Bowers, 

there is no longer the risk of an inconsistency if the Court grants judgment by default 

against the BCL Entities. 

Great American previously briefed why it is entitled to judgment against the

BCL Entities. See Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Docket No. 45; see also

Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 61. Great American incorporates that 

prior briefing as if fully set forth herein. Restated and summarized:

• Great American Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify BCL Home Rehab, 

LLC. Pursuant to the Policy’s insuring agreement, Great American “will pay 

those sums that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages 

because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance 

applies.” See Docket 1, ¶29 and Docket 1, Exhibit B. While the Bowers name 

BCL Home Rehab, LLC as a Defendant in the Underlying Lawsuit, the 

Bowers do not seek damages because of “bodily injury” or property damage” 

from BCL Home Rehab, LLC. See Docket 1, ¶¶46-48 and Docket 1, Exhibit A. 

The Bowers simply allege that BCL Home Rehab is a subsidiary of Barnett 

Capital. See Docket 1, Exhibit A, ¶4. None of the counts seek damages from 

BCL Home Rehab, let alone damages because of “bodily injury” or “property 

damage” to which the Policy applies. See Docket 1, Exhibit B, pages14-22. 

Accordingly, Great American has no duty to defend or indemnify BCL Home 

Rehab LLC with respect to the Underlying Lawsuit. 

• Great American Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Barnett Capital 

Limited. Pursuant to the Policy’s insuring agreement, Great American “will 

pay those sums that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay. . .” See 

Docket 1, ¶¶29 and 54 and Docket 1, Exhibit B. As noted above, the Policy 

was issued to BCL Home Rehab, LLC as a named insured. See Docket 1, ¶26 

and Docket 1, Exhibit B. Further, pursuant to Policy Change Number 1 

endorsement, the Policy also identifies “additional named insureds.” See 

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:614
9

Docket 1, ¶31 and Docket 1, Exhibit B. However, Barnett Capital is not 

identified as an additional named insured in Policy Change Number 1 

endorsement. See Docket 1, ¶55 and Docket 1, Exhibit B. Further, Barnett 

Capital does not fall within the scope of “Insured” under Section II in the 

Policy, WHO IS AN INSURED. See Docket 1, Exhibit B. As Barnett Capital 

is not an Insured under the Policy, Great American has no duty to defend or 

indemnify Barnett Capital.

• Great American Has No Duty to Defend or Indemnify BCL -LT Beneficiary. 

In the Underlying Lawsuit, the Bowers do not seek damages because of 

“bodily injury.” See Docket 1, ¶46 and Docket 1, Exhibit A. The Bowers also 

do not seek damages because of “property damage.” See Docket 1, ¶¶47-48 

and Docket 1, Exhibit A. The Bowers seek damages because of faulty 

workmanship. See Docket 1, ¶48 and Docket 1, Exhibit A, ¶¶10, 12, 14, 16, 25 

and 30. The Policy does not afford coverage for faulty workmanship. Acuity 

Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Assoc., et al., 138 N.E.3d 189 (Il. 

App 2019) (citations omitted) (a commercial general liability policy does not 

cover an accident of faulty workmanship, but faulty workmanship which 

causes an accident); see also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Eljer Mfg., Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 

278, 313–14, 757 N.E.2d 481, 503 (2001) (“[I]f we were to interpret the post–

1981 excess CGL policies as urged by the policyholders, ‘the policy would not 

only provide insurance against tort liability, but would function as a 

performance bond as well.’”).

In light of the foregoing, entry of a default judgment against the BCL Entities 

is warranted, and a judgment should enter declaring that the Great American Policy 

does not cover the Bowers’ claims against the BCL Entities. A proposed judgment is 

attached to this motion.

B. Entry of Final Judgment is Appropriate and Warranted.

All relief sought by Great American in its Complaint has been granted and 

there is no reason to further delay of entry of a final judgment against all Defendants. 

In the Complaint, Great American sought entry of judgment in its favor and a 

declaration that:

(1) Great American has no duty to defend any of the Defendants in the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:615
10

Underlying Lawsuit under the Policy and (2) Great American has no 

duty to indemnify any of the Defendants in the Underlying Lawsuit 

under the Policy. 

Complaint, Docket No. 1, p. 22.

The Court’s March 1, 2023 Order stated that “Great American has no duty to 

defend or indemnify the defendants in the underlying suit.” Once the Court grants 

default judgments against the BCL Entities, all relief sought in the Complaint will 

have been granted. Accordingly, under Rule 58, since all relief has been granted, a 

final judgment should be entered in favor of Great American. A proposed judgment 

is attached to this motion.

IV. Notice and Statement Pursuant to Order of June 4, 2021 

To date, Plaintiff has had no contact with any representative (or attorney) for 

the BCL Entities, and accordingly cannot confirm in accordance with the Court’s June 

4, 2021 Order (Docket No. 43) as to whether the motion is unopposed or opposed, 

except to state that a party in default has failed to timely oppose the claims of the 

Complaint and the allegations are deemed admitted, and therefore as a matter of law 

the Court should find this motion is unopposed. In accordance with the Court’s Order 

Granting Leave to serve the BCL Entities via the Illinois Secretary of State (Docket 

No. 24), Plaintiff will serve this motion via the Illinois Secretary of State, and Plaintiff 

will send a copy via first class mail, postage prepaid, to the BCL Entities’ registered 

agent, LP Agents, LLC, 2 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1300, Chicago, IL 60602.

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:616
11

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Great American is entitled to a default

judgment against the BCL Entities, and to a final judgment in its favor and against 

each of the Defendants in this action. Accordingly, Great American respectfully 

requests entry of (1) a default judgment order against each of the BCL Entities, and 

(2) a final judgment against each of the Defendants.

March 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ John Eggum

Matthew S. Ponzi 

John Eggum

Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff PC

222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 863-5053

mponzi@fgppr.com

jeggum@fgppr.com

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Great American E & S Insurance Company

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:617
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel 

of record on March 23, 2023 via CM/ECF, the Court’s electronic notification system.

The motion was also served via first class United States mail, postage prepaid, 

on the Illinois Secretary of State and on the BCL Entities’ registered agent, LP 

Agents, LLC, 2 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1300, Chicago, IL 60602

/s/ John Eggum

John Eggum

Case: 1:20-cv-02004 Document #: 70 Filed: 03/23/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:618