1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

PROVIDENCE CONDOMINIUM ) 

ASSOCIATION, ) 

 ) Case No. 20 C 2659 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY ) JURY DEMAND 

OF AMERICA, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 Now comes the Plaintiff, Providence Condominium Association, an Illinois not-for-profit 

corporation, and files its Original Complaint against Defendant, The Travelers Indemnity 

Company of America, and states as follows: 

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 

1. Plaintiff, Providence Condominium Association (“Providence” or “Plaintiff”) is a 

not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. 

2. Upon information and belief, The Travelers Indemnity Company of America 

(“Travelers” of “Defendant”) is a Connecticut insurance company registered with the Illinois 

Department of Insurance to do business within the state of Illinois and whose headquarters is 

located at One Tower Square, Hartford, Connecticut 06183. Travelers may be served through its 

agent for service of process, Director, Illinois Department of Insurance, 320 W. Washington, 

Springfield, Illinois 62767. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1) as 

this matter is one between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. 

4. Venue is proper in this jurisdictional district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2)/ 

§1391(b)(2) because the property that is subject to this matter is located in this district. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 

5. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s right to recover have been fully performed 

or have been waived by Defendant. 

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE COMPLAINT 

6. On or about May 2, 2018, a wind and hail-related storm damaged forty-seven (47) 

buildings in a condominium complex held by Providence, located at 3041 Hughsdale Street, Elgin, 

IL 60124 (the “Property”). The Property sustained both hail and wind damage on all buildings at 

the Property (the “Loss”). 

7. On May 2, 2018, and at all times relevant, Travelers insured the Property against 

such losses pursuant to Policy No. 680-7F570088 for the May 2, 2018 loss, with effective dates of 

April 24, 2018 to April 24, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Policy”). A true and correct copy of the Policy 

is attached as Exhibit A. 

8. After receiving the claim, Travelers inspected only six (6) of the buildings on the 

Property. Thereafter, Travelers approved $117,020.58 in covered damages1

 under the Policy for 

roof damages on only two (2) of the buildings at the Property. 

9. Since that time, Providence provided Travelers with photographs and additional 

evidence, showing that, among other things, the roofs on all forty-seven (47) buildings at the 

 

1

 Measured at “replacement cost” value under the Policy. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

Property sustained hail damage. Despite the evidence of covered damages provided by 

Providence, Travelers refused to increase its adjustment, and after passing the claim to multiple 

adjusters, became completely non-responsive. 

10. On or about March 21, 2019, after failing to receive any substantive response from 

Travelers in furtherance of the adjustment, Providence submitted a Proof of Loss claiming 

$4,621,888.25 in damages resulting from the May 2, 2018 loss (the “POL”), along with a damage 

estimate detailing the necessary repairs to all forty-seven (47) buildings at the Property. 

11. Since Providence submitted the POL nearly twelve months ago, Travelers has 

passed the claim to multiple adjusters, but has provided no substantive, written communications 

regarding coverage. 

12. Given Travelers’ refusal to re-inspect the Property and increase its offer, and given 

that there is an approximate $4.5 Million Dollar difference in valuation on the damages sustained 

by the Loss, there is a clear dispute as to the “amount of loss” between the parties. Consequently, 

on or about March 6, 2020, Providence’s board president sent a letter to Travelers, invoking the 

appraisal provision contained in the Policy (the “Appraisal Provision”), which details the 

contractual rights and obligations of the parties when there is a dispute as to the amount of the loss. 

The Appraisal Provision provides, in relevant part: 

 E. PROPERTY LOSS CONDITIONS 

The following conditions apply in addition to the Common Policy 

Conditions: 

 2. Appraisal

If we and you disagree on the value of the property, the amount of Net 

Income and operating expense or the amount of loss, either may make 

written demand for an appraisal of the loss. In this event, each party will 

select a competent and impartial appraiser. The two appraisers will 

select an umpire. If they cannot agree, either may request that selection 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

be made by a judge of a court having jurisdiction. The appraiser will 

state separately the value of the property, the amount of Net Income and 

operating expense or the amount of loss. If they fail to agree, they will 

submit their differences to the umpire. A decision agreed to by any two will 

be binding. Each party will: 

a. Pay its chosen appraiser; and

b. Bear the other expenses of the appraisal and umpire equally.

13. Upon receipt of Providence’s written demand for appraisal, Travelers assigned a 

new adjuster to the claim. On April 6, 2020, Travelers’ adjuster admitted to Providence’s retained 

public adjuster that he had not yet inspected the property. Nevertheless, Travelers’ adjuster 

subsequently issued a letter dated April 10, 2020 attempting to respond to Providence’s demand 

for appraisal. Despite Travelers’ admission of coverage and the plain language of the Appraisal 

Provision, Travelers failed to appoint an appraiser or submit the parties’ dispute over the value of 

the Loss to appraisal as required by the terms of the Policy. Instead, the letter from Travelers’ 

adjuster improperly attempted to impose an additional requirement – not contained in the Policy – 

namely, that Providence explain the reason(s) for the dispute and specify the items in dispute. 

Notwithstanding that, the Policy does not require that Providence explain the basis for its appraisal 

demand. Travelers has a copy of both the POL and the policyholder’s estimate of damages. Not 

only is Travelers on notice of the nature of the damages sustained by the Loss as required, it has 

detailed information regarding the exact damages and corresponding line items required for repair 

of the Property. Travelers can perform a simple, side-by-side comparison of the estimates which 

will provide far more detail than is even required regarding the dispute as to the amount of the 

Loss. Given this, it is obvious that Travelers is delaying payment of the claim and avoiding 

appraisal in bad faith, thereby necessitating the filing of this lawsuit and forcing Providence to 

incur unnecessary legal costs and fees. For this reason and to the extent that Travelers continues 

to refuse to participate in good faith in appraisal, which is a contractually-required and material 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

requirement of the Policy that Travelers drafted and issued, Providence requests that the Court 

award its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this unnecessary lawsuit 

and subsequent Motion to Compel Appraisal. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 

Count 1 - Declaratory Judgment 

14. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates 

them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

15. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57, a justiciable controversy exists 

between Providence and Travelers with respect to Travelers’ Policy. Specifically, Providence is 

entitled to coverage, payment for the loss, and an appraisal proceeding pursuant to said Policy. 

16. Providence seeks the Court to declare that Providence is entitled to coverage under 

the Policy for the full extent of damages sustained as a result of the May 2, 2018 loss. 

17. Providence further seeks the Court to: (i) declare that appraisal is the appropriate 

form of dispute resolution for this matter, and (ii) compel Travelers to submit the damages 

sustained from the May 2, 2018 loss to the appraisal process pursuant to the terms of the Policy. 

18. Providence further seeks the Court to declare that: (i) Providence is entitled to 

payment under the Policy for the damages sustained from the May 2, 2018 loss, and (ii) the 

appraisal panel shall determine the amount of the loss in accordance with the Policy and Illinois 

law. 

Count 2 - Breach of Contract 

19. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates 

them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

20. Travelers breached the contract of insurance it had with Providence. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

21. Travelers breached the contract by its failure to properly investigate, adjust and pay 

the claim for all covered damages as required by the Policy and Illinois law. 

22. As a direct result of Travelers breaching its insurance contract with Providence, 

Providence has suffered damages in an amount in excess of $75,000, exclusive of interests and 

costs, in an amount to be proven at trial. 

Count 3 - Violation of Illinois “Bad Faith” Statute2

23. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates 

them by reference as if fully set forth herein.

24. As set forth above, Travelers failed to act in good faith and has violated numerous 

Unfair Claims Practices, as set forth in 215 ILCS 5/155.

25. Travelers has acted in bad faith, in a vexatious manner, and unreasonably during 

the purported adjustment of this claim.

26. Among other things, Travelers’ vexatious and unreasonable conduct includes: (i) 

refusing and/or failing to conduct an adequate investigation of the loss and damage, including 

failing to inspect the majority of the buildings; (ii) engaging in massive delays, passing the claim 

to multiple adjusters, and providing no substantive communication regarding coverage for nearly 

a year after Providence submitted its POL; (iii) failing and/or refusing to open coverage on all 

forty-seven (47) buildings, without a full inspection, when there was obvious evidence that there 

was hail and wind damage on roofs that was identical to those roofs that had already been approved 

for replacement; (iv) failing and/or refusing to perform a re-inspection and/or properly investigate 

the loss and damage when Providence provided photographic evidence to Travelers to support the 

claim; (v) “low-balling” the settlement value of the claim and/or underpaying the claim with the 

 

2

 See 215 ILCS 5/155 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

intent to deprive Providence of the value of their replacement cost Policy; (vi) failing and/or 

refusing to engage in the appraisal process in accordance with the terms of the Policy, which has 

necessitated this lawsuit; and/or (vii) in direct contradiction of the Policy terms and Illinois law, 

demanding that Providence provide information and/or satisfy certain conditions as a precursor to 

appraisal.

27. The conduct and actions of Travelers, as set forth above, was unreasonable and 

vexatious, which entitles Providence to certain extracontractual damages under Section 155 of the 

Illinois Insurance Code, which provides in relevant part:

(1) In any action by or against a company wherein there is in issue the liability of 

a company on a policy or policies of insurance or the amount of the loss payable 

thereunder, or for any unreasonable delay in settling a claim, and it appears to 

the court that such action or delay is vexatious and unreasonable, the court may 

allow as part of the taxable costs in the action reasonable attorney fees, other 

costs, plus an amount not to exceed any one of the following amounts:

(a) 60% of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is entitled 

to recover against the company, exclusive of all costs; 

(b) $60,000;

(c) the excess of the amount which the court or jury finds such party is 

entitled to recover, exclusive of costs, over the amount, if any, which 

the company offered to pay in settlement of the claim prior to the action. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

28. Plaintiff restates and realleges all of the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates 

them by reference as if fully set forth herein. 

29. Plaintiff engaged the undersigned attorney to prosecute this lawsuit against 

Defendant and agreed to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses through trial and any appeal. 

30. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees pursuant to 215 

ILCS 5/155, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

JURY DEMAND 

31. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

PRAYER 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Providence Condominium Association, prays that upon final 

hearing, that it recover all damages for and against Defendant, The Travelers Indemnity Company 

of America, that may be reasonably established by a preponderance of evidence; that an order be 

entered compelling the parties to submit to appraisal their dispute over the value of the Loss; and 

that Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees through trial and appeal, costs of court, pre-judgment 

interest, post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief, general or special, at law or in 

equity, to which Plaintiff may show itself to be justly entitled. 

Dated: May 1, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 PROVIDENCE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 

 By: s/James P. Kenny 

 ONE OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS 

Eric T. Green 

GREEN HODGES & GOWLAND, PLLC 

10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75231 

(800) 683-6975 

eric@ghglawyers.com 

James P. Kenny 

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. KENNY, P.C. 

135 South LaSalle St., Ste. 2200 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 641-0700 

james@kennylawfirm.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02659 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8