We believe the contract language upon which Transcontinental relies is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. The issue was improperly resolved by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment. The intentions of the parties are subject to explanation by extrinsic evidence. The copy of the contract in the record is illegible. The effect of other language in the contract which refers to insurance and might resolve the ambiguity would be speculation given the state of this record.
Pepper argues that there is yet another ground to affirm the trial court's decision.
Because we review the grant of summary judgment de novo and may affirm the decision on any ground in the record, regardless of whether the trial court relied on that ground or whether the court's reasoning was correct, we address Pepper's argument. Pepper argues that Transcontinental is estopped from denying coverage because it assumed the defense for more than three years before it tendered the defense back to Pepper. 87 Ill. App. In Gibraltar, the supreme court held the insurer waived policy defenses for liability after it had taken over the insured's defense for more than 16 months. 99 Ill. App.