Opinion ID: 2088479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: duty to defend standard

Text: Each plaintiff agreed to defend any suit against [Wilkin] seeking damages on account of    property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent. To determine an insurer's duty to defend its insured, the court must look to the allegations of the underlying complaints. If the underlying complaints allege facts within or potentially within policy coverage, the insurer is obliged to defend its insured even if the allegations are groundless, false, or fraudulent. ( Thornton v. Paul (1978), 74 Ill.2d 132, 23 Ill.Dec. 541, 384 N.E.2d 335.) An insurer may not justifiably refuse to defend an action against its insured unless it is clear from the face of the underlying complaints that the allegations fail to state facts which bring the case within, or potentially within, the policy's coverage. ( Conway v. Country Casualty Insurance Co. (1982), 92 Ill.2d 388, 65 Ill.Dec. 934, 442 N.E.2d 245.) Moreover, if the underlying complaints allege several theories of recovery against the insured, the duty to defend arises even if only one such theory is within the potential coverage of the policy. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers (1976), 64 Ill.2d 187, 355 N.E.2d 24. The underlying complaints and the insurance policies must be liberally construed in favor of the insured. Where a policy provision is clear and unambiguous, its language must be taken in its plain, ordinary and popular sense. ( Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Case Foundation Co. (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 115, 121, 294 N.E.2d 7.) A provision is ambiguous if it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. ( Marathon Plastics, Inc. v. International Insurance Co. (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 452, 464, 112 Ill.Dec. 816, 514 N.E.2d 479.) All doubts and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1986), 150 Ill.App.3d 479, 103 Ill.Dec. 500, 501 N.E.2d 817; Trovillion v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1985), 130 Ill.App.3d 694, 86 Ill.Dec. 39, 474 N.E.2d 953. With these principles in mind, we will now review the allegations of the underlying complaints and plaintiffs' insurance policies. We must determine whether the underlying complaints allege potentially covered property damage caused by an occurrence that is not excluded by the various exclusionary clauses contained in the insurance policies.