Court Opinion

ID: 9540330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:14:46.044907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:33.045114
License: Public Domain

EBERSPACHER, J., specially concurring. While I agree that the trial court erred in dismissing the counterclaims, I do not consider Luther v. Mathis, 211 Ill App 596, 601, as authority for the statement made in the opinion, “The fact that plaintiff seeks no recovery for damage to the ‘project’ does not preclude defendants from asserting their claim by counterclaim,” nor do I agree with that statement. Examination of the complaint discloses that in each count, the prayer is for damages to plaintiff’s premises or property, not plaintiff’s premises or property other than “the entire project.” We are not called upon to determine the extent of defendants’ insurable interest in the project, nor what comprises the “entire project” because plaintiffs by their complaint seek to recover all their damages, including those on that part of their property, which the pleaded contract shows they clearly agreed to insure. Therefore, the allegations of a breach of the contract to insure are properly recoupment in this case, and properly claimed by counterclaim. Had plaintiffs, by their complaint sought recovery only for damages to its property, other than “the entire project,” we would be called upon to determine, in passing on the sufficiency of the amended counterclaims, of what the “entire project” consisted; and if we determined that “entire project” included parts of the building not being repaired, proof of failure to insure would be the proper subject matter of the counterclaims; but if it was determined that “entire project” consisted only of parts of the building being repaired, the roof deck and substructure, then, since it would appear from the pleaded contract that plaintiff had no duty to insure that property which was damaged and was not part of the “entire project,” the counterclaims would not state a cause of action. Since the complaint prays for all damage to all of plaintiff’s property damaged, both that in which plaintiff had a duty to insure defendant’s interest, and that in which there was no duty to insure defendant’s interest, the counterclaims meet the requirements interest, the counterclaims meet the requirements of Luther v. Mathis, supra. Although plaintiffs contend that they seek only damages for property, other than is embraced in “the entire project,” the complaint does not so state and defendants have not conceded that plaintiffs seek only damage for property other than is includible in “the entire project” nor did plaintiffs see fit to amend their complaint to specifically claim damages for only their damage to property on which they were not obligated to insure defendants’ interest.