Source: https://secure.heylroyster.com/areasofpractice/details.cfm?pageID=3&specialtyID=63
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:48:06+00:00

Document:
These scenarios are also applicable to a wide variety of policies, such as CGL policies, farm policies, personal and commercial automobile policies, homeowners policies, landlord and renters policies, trucking policies, directors and officers liability policies, professional liability policies, and others – and a broad range of experience over many types of policies is often helpful, if not essential.
Heyl Royster has been a trusted advocate for insurers for decades, and our attorneys have extensive experience representing carriers and guiding them through all types of matters – large and small, from simple to complex. Over the years, we have evaluated, handled, and tried innumerable first-party property claims involving fires, natural disasters, arson, fraud, and a myriad of other circumstances that confront insurers in these types of claims.
We routinely provide carriers with experienced coverage advice, and we have prosecuted declaratory judgment actions encompassing a wide array of coverage questions, such as the interpretation of insuring agreements, exclusions, additional-insured endorsements, and all other parts of insurance policies. Our attorneys are frequently called upon to provide a vigorous defense to often challenging, extra-contractual claims, whether the claim is couched in terms of breach of contract, fraud, consumer fraud, bad faith failure to settle, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, or vexatious and unreasonable conduct. We counsel insurers on claims handling, and represent them in cases alleging improper claim practices, which can involve the thorny intersection of common law insurance law principles and the regulatory obligations applicable to carriers.
Ms. B v. Insurance Company Circuit Court of Tazewell County, Illinois (2017) Plaintiffs’ insurance policy lapsed after failing to make timely premium payments. Twenty-one hours after the policy had lapsed, a fire destroyed plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs paid their insurance premiums immediately following the fire. The defendant insurer advised the insured that the policy was not in force on the day of the fire and refunded a portion of the premium. Plaintiffs filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith against the insurer and agent. The agent was quickly dismissed from the suit. Plaintiffs argued that there were issues of waiver and that the insurer had a pattern and practice of accepting late payments without a disruption in coverage. Alternatively, plaintiffs argued that they made advanced premium payments, therefore the cancellation was improper. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Z v. Insurance Company Circuit Court of Peoria County, Illinois (2016) An insured claimed that his pipe had burst in his rental property causing a significant loss. The insurer denied the claim after learning that the insured had failed to maintain heat and/or winterize the pipes as required by the insurance policy. The insured offered several new theories for the loss which were ultimately proven false by testimony of various witnesses and utility providers. As a result, summary judgment was granted by the trial court finding that the policy exclusion applied and that the insurance company did not act in bad faith.
Reeder v. Auto Owners Ins. Co. 2016 IL App (3d) 150252-U Obtained summary judgment in favor of Auto Owners in a case where plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to coverage under an insurance policy issued to the prior owner of car. The firm also argued the case before the Third District Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's order, holding that following the sale of the car, the prior owners had no insurable interest in the vehicle. In addition, the court found that the omnibus clause of the policy could not be interpreted as offering coverage to the purchasers of the car.
Demond v. Ameriprise Insurance Company 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32616 (S.D. Ill., March 17, 2015): Court granted summary judgment in favor of two insurers on plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress finding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the “extreme” mental distress necessary to support the cause of action.
Insurance Company v. Mr. & Mrs. S Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Illinois (2014): After insureds were sued for injuries to a foster child living in their residence, they sought a defense to the claim under their homeowners’ insurance. We were retained by the homeowner’s insurer and filed a declaratory judgment, arguing that the injury to insured exclusion of the policy precluded coverage because the foster child was a resident of the insured’s household. After discovery and the submission of cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court entered judgment in the homeowner insurer’s favor, finding that it had no duty to defend the insureds.
Velazquez v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company 2011 IL App (5th) 100444-U: Illinois Appellate Court for the Fifth District affirmed dismissal of a Section 155 claim against an insurer on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the Section 155 claim. In doing so, the Appellate Court reaffirmed the general rule that only an insured or an insured’s assignee has standing to bring a Section 155 claim.
Insurance Company v. Mr. & Mrs. W Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois (2011): After insureds were sued by their child for injuries stemming from abuse to their child by a family acquaintance, they sought a defense to the claim under their homeowners policy. We were retained by the insurer and filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting that the injury to insured exclusion precluded coverage. After filing a summary judgment motion, the insurer entered judgment in the insurer’s favor, finding that it had no duty to defend the insureds.
B. v. Insurance Company Circuit Court of Rock Island County, Illinois (2001): Successful defense at jury trial of alleged breach of contract claim in which insurer asserted material misrepresentation and arson defenses.
Roberts v. Northland Ins. Co. 185 Ill. 2d 262 (1998) In a claim against a primary and excess insurer, the court held that the insured was entitled to only one setoff for the insured's workers' compensation benefits; that the primary insurer was entitled to take the workers' compensation setoff first, after which any remainder could be taken by the excess insurer; and that public policy precluded either insurer from taking a setoff for the insured's social security disability benefits.
Calvert Ins. Co. v. Western Ins. Co. 874 F.2d 396 (7th Cir. 1989) Insurance coverage issue as to whether general liability insurer had to reimburse excess carrier for expenses excess carrier incurred in defending police officers and city in civil rights litigation arising from arrest.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.