Opinion ID: 496830
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facts

Text: 10 The parties agree on the following facts. Ohio issued to Tews a comprehensive general liability policy. On March 14, 1985, within the policy period, Tews was named as a defendant in a case assigned to Judge Marshall of this court, Cedar Park Funeral Home v. Illinois Funeral Directors' Association, No. 85 C 2137. Tews promptly notified Ohio of the suit and asked Ohio to indemnify it against all liability. Ohio informed Tews that it had retained an attorney for Tews but was conducting the defense under a reservation of rights, stating that it might later disclaim coverage should Tews be found liable. Tews retained independent counsel who wrote Ohio asking it to acknowledge its duty to pay the fees and costs of the independent counsel in defending the suit, and further asking Ohio to recognize that Tews, through its independent counsel, had a right to control the Cedar Park litigation. Ohio refused both demands. Tews filed this declaratory judgment action regarding its rights and Ohio's duties. Ohio filed a declaratory counterclaim. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. After those motions were fully briefed and while they were under our consideration, Judge Marshall dismissed the Cedar Park Complaint without prejudice. The Cedar Park plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint (the Amended Cedar Park Complaint). Ohio amended its counterclaim to address the Amended Cedar Park Complaint. Both Tews and Ohio have filed supplemental memoranda requesting judgment on the pleadings. 11 The Cedar Park plaintiffs are various funeral homes and funeral directors' associations who are engaged in virtually all aspects of the funeral, burial and cemetery industry. Amended Cedar Park Complaint, Preliminary Statement at 3. They sell merchandise at wholesale to other businesses and individuals within the industry. They also sell merchandise and services to the general public, both on an at-need basis, i.e., sales made at the time of death, and on a pre-need basis, i.e., sales made in advance of death. The Amended Cedar Park Complaint also alleges that [c]ertain of the plaintiffs are participants in joint cemetery/mortuary operations established to provide the general public with innovative cost-saving alternatives to historical ... methods of marketing [funeral and cemetery] merchandise and services. Id. 12 Tews and the other named defendants are accused, generally, of conspiring with one another in an attempt to maintain artificially high prices for their historical funeral and burial services and products. The Amended Cedar Park Complaint also accuses them of conspiring to discourage or prevent consumers from buying cost-saving alternative products and services from the Cedar Park plaintiffs. Tews and the other named defendants are accused of conspiring to make false, misleading and defamatory statements disparaging the Cedar Park plaintiffs' services and products with the expressed interest of discouraging consumers from buying the Cedar Park plaintiffs' products and services. Count I, paragraphs 54(t), (u); Count II, p 57; Count III, paragraphs 53-55; Count IV, paragraphs 52-54; Count VII, p 54; Count VIII, p 54; Count IX, p 54. The Cedar Park plaintiffs allege these statements give rise to liability under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1, 2; the Illinois Antitrust Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 38, Secs. 60-3(2), (3); and under common law for interference with plaintiffs' right to pursue a lawful business. In addition, Tews and the other named defendants are accused of wilfully ... disparag[ing] the goods, services or business of plaintiffs by providing consumers with false and misleading information in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 121 1/2, Sec. 312(8); the Conswner Fraud Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 121 1/2, Sec. 261; and common law for interference with potential and existing contractual relationships. Count V, paragraphs 51(c), (d); Count VI, paragraphs 51(c), (d); Count VII, paragraphs 51(c), (d); Count VIII, paragraphs 51(c), (d). 1 The statements by Tews and the other named defendants were apparently made in advertisements attached as exhibits to the Amended Cedar Park Complaint. 13 Tews claims that, regardless of whether Ohio has a duty to indemnify Tews for any damages that might eventually arise out of the Amended Cedar Park Complaint, Ohio has a duty to defend Tews because the claims are potentially within the scope of coverage under Ohio's policy. Tews argues that the allegations in the Amended Cedar Park Complaint involving the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Consumer Fraud Act, and the common law claims for interference with existing and potential contracts and the right to run a lawful business are claims for unfair competition based solely on defamation, invoking four different legal theories. Thus, Tews argues that Ohio's policy potentially provides coverage 2 as the allegations constitute an advertising offense 3 or a personal injury 4 within the meaning of the policy. Finally, Tews argues that Ohio has a conflict of interest with Tews and that Tews should be allowed to appoint independent counsel to control the litigation and to be reimbursed by Ohio. 14 Ohio argues that the Amended Cedar Park Complaint, like the original Cedar Park Complaint, alleges only intentional conduct. Because its policy insures only against occurrences, 5 which are defined by the policy as instances of non-intentional conduct, Ohio argues there is no possibility of coverage. 6