Court Opinion

ID: 9519268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:12:40.379748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:11.969838
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: I concur in that portion of the opinion which determines that there was no cancellation of policies by substitution. The trial court made a specific finding that plaintiffs were fully advised of the denial of liability by these defendants some six weeks or more prior to the expiration of the one year within which suit must be brought, and that there was ample time within which plaintiffs could have filed their action. The trial court directly relied upon the opinion in Midwest Triangle Paint Works, Inc. v. Firemens Insurance Co. (1962), 36 Ill. App. 2d 65, 183 N.E.2d 562, which determined that there was knowledge of a denial of plaintiffs’ claim, some five weeks remaining to commence suit was adequate. That conclusion was not questioned in Downing v. Wolverine Insurance Co. (1965), 62 Ill. App. 2d 305, 210 N.E.2d 603, but the Triangle case was distinguished because the insured was not advised of the denial of liability until after the expiration of the policy limitations of one year for bringing suit. Plaintiffs cite Ciaccio v. North River Insurance Co. (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 940, 308 N.E.2d 860, and O’Brien v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. (1969), 105 Ill. App. 2d 21, 245 N.E.2d 30. In O’Brien, the insurance company made an offer of settlement two months after the expiration of the one-year period. The court found a waiver. In Ciaccio, the insurer required the insured to give a sworn statement and to produce records which had been destroyed in the fire. The reconstruction of the records from secondary sources required long effort and they were delivered after the expiration of the year limitation. There had been no specific denial of liability. It was held that it was a question of fact whether the insured had been induced to believe that the insurer would settle without litigation. Such opinion does not affect the viability of Triangle. In the light of the finding of the trial court which does not appear to be contradicted in argument, I cannot agree with the conclusion that the trial court was not “in possession of all of the facts pertinent to the question of whether the plaintiffs were lulled into a false sense of security.” I would affirm the trial court upon this issue.