Court Opinion

ID: 9383969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:04:39.632967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.211322
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221151-U
                                                 No. 1-22-1151
                                         Order filed March 31, 2023
                                                                                               Fourth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
                                                     IN THE
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                               FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,                                       )   Appeal from the
                                                                        )   Circuit Court of
          Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee,                      )   Cook County.
                                                                        )
     v.                                                                 )   Consolidated Nos.
                                                                        )   18 CH 4794
HALEY FLYNN and LARRY HERSKOVITZ,                                       )   17 M1 119255
                                                                        )
          Defendants                                                    )
                                                                        )
(Haley Flynn, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-                           )   Honorable
Appellant).                                                             )   David B. Atkins,
                                                                        )
---------------------------------------------------------------------       Judge, presiding.
                                                                        )
HALEY FLYNN,                                                            )
                                                                        )
          Plaintiff-Appellant,                                          )
                                                                        )
     v.                                                                 )
                                                                        )
                                                                        )
SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and
                                                                        )
DANNA KRISCHKE,                                                         )
                                                                        )
          Defendants                                                    )   Honorable
                                                                        )   Daniel P. Duffy,
(Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant-                           )   Judge, presiding.
Appellee).                                                              )
No. 1-22-1151

        PRESIDING JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices Rochford and Martin concurred in the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1     Held: The circuit court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment is affirmed
             where the court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer and against the
             insured, finding that the insured’s vehicle at issue was not covered under her
             insurance policy and the insurer did not have a duty to defend or indemnify her for
             damage she caused to another vehicle.

¶2     The instant appeal arises from a dispute over a motor vehicle insurance policy Shelter

Mutual Insurance Company (Shelter Mutual) issued to Haley Flynn, who was involved in an

accident with a vehicle owned by Larry Herskovitz. When Flynn filed a claim under her policy

with Shelter Mutual, it denied her request for coverage, claiming that her 2009 vehicle was not

insured under her policy.

¶3     Flynn filed a small-claims lawsuit in the circuit court against Shelter Mutual based on its

denial of coverage, and Shelter Mutual filed a counterclaim in the small-claims action, seeking

declaratory judgment as to its duty to provide Flynn coverage. After Herskovitz sued Flynn,

Shelter Mutual filed a separate declaratory judgment action in the circuit court’s chancery division,

seeking a declaration that it did not owe Flynn a duty to defend or indemnify with respect to

Herskovitz’s lawsuit against her.

¶4     Flynn’s and Shelter Mutual’s two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the

chancery division. Both Flynn and Shelter Mutual filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and

the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Shelter Mutual and against Flynn.

                                                -2-
No. 1-22-1151

¶5      Flynn appeals, arguing summary judgment in favor of Shelter Mutual on its cross-motion

against her was error because (1) Shelter Mutual’s declaratory judgment claims improperly raised

the same coverage issue as its pre-suit coverage denial, supplanted an existing remedy, and

deprived Flynn of her chosen forum in small claims court, (2) Flynn was entitled to discovery on

the issue of the authority of Shelter Mutual’s agent, (3) the agent’s consent to Flynn’s request to

switch her vehicle coverage was not required, (4) the agent’s duty and Shelter Mutual’s knowledge

support reformation of the policy, and (5) Illinois law and policy require minimum liability

coverage for Herskovitz’s vehicle damages.

¶6      Flynn also argues that she was entitled to summary judgment against Shelter Mutual

because it waived its coverage defense and ratified and reformed the policy by issuing new

endorsements showing coverage for Flynn’s 2009 vehicle on the accident date and by failing to

return Flynn’s premiums. In addition, Flynn argues that she properly pled a claim for Shelter

Mutual’s abuse of process; the circuit court abused its discretion by denying her motion to amend

her complaint; and she is entitled to attorney fees based on Shelter Mutual’s vexatious and

unreasonable conduct.

¶7      For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court. 1

¶8                                        I. BACKGROUND

¶9      On October 17, 2016, Flynn purchased a 2010 Honda Civic (2010 vehicle) and sent a text

message to Shelter Mutual insurance agent Danna Krischke, requesting insurance coverage for the

vehicle. Krischke obtained coverage for Flynn under a Shelter Mutual policy with effective dates

        1
          In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018),
this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.

                                                  -3-
No. 1-22-1151

from October 17, 2016, through February 16, 2017. Five days later, on October 22, 2016, Flynn

traded in the 2010 vehicle for a 2009 Honda Civic (2009 vehicle). On October 31, 2016, Flynn

sent Krischke a text message asking her to switch Flynn’s insurance policy to the 2009 vehicle.

Krischke, however, never made that change, and the policy was renewed later with the 2010

vehicle listed as the covered vehicle. Specifically, on January 24, 2017, Shelter Mutual billed, and

Flynn paid, a policy premium of $711.20, and Shelter Mutual issued Flynn policy documents

reflecting a policy period of February 16, 2017, through August 16, 2017, but still showing the

insured vehicle as the 2010 vehicle that Flynn had traded in, rather than the 2009 vehicle.

¶ 10   On March 16, 2017, Flynn was involved in a motor vehicle accident when she rear-ended

a vehicle owned by Larry Herskovitz. The collision caused damage to Flynn’s 2009 vehicle in the

amount of $4700, which she paid directly to the repair shop. She also incurred $1029.68 in auto

rental expenses while her vehicle was being repaired, which she paid as well. The collision also

caused $4606.42 in damage to Herskovitz’s vehicle, which Herskovitz’s insurer paid.

¶ 11   On March 29, 2017, Flynn telephoned Krischke to inform her of the collision but was told

that the 2009 vehicle “was not the covered vehicle under the policy.” Krischke then charged Flynn

an additional $2.80 in premium payments and sent Flynn new insurance cards showing an effective

term from March 29, 2017, through August 16, 2017, and listing the 2009 vehicle as the covered

vehicle. Neither Krischke nor Shelter Mutual offered to refund any premiums Flynn had paid on

the 2010 vehicle during the policy period. The record does not indicate that Flynn requested any

such refund.

¶ 12   When Flynn filed a claim under her policy with Shelter Mutual, it denied her request for

coverage on April 12, 2017, claiming that the policy covered the 2010 vehicle and not the 2009

                                               -4-
No. 1-22-1151

vehicle. On April 26, 2017, Flynn e-mailed Shelter Mutual’s customer service, asking for her

“current evidence of insurance cards” and received insurance cards showing a policy period from

February 16, 2017, through August 16, 2017, and listing the 2009 vehicle as the covered vehicle.

On May 9, 2017, Flynn again e-mailed Shelter Mutual’s customer service with the same request

and received the same cards.

¶ 13   On July 7, 2017, Flynn filed a four-count small-claims complaint in the municipal division

of the circuit court against Shelter Mutual and Krischke, alleging that Flynn was the named insured

on an automobile insurance policy issued by Shelter Mutual and procured by Krischke that

provided Flynn with collision and liability coverage. Flynn alleged that when she sent Krischke

the text message on October 31, 2016, asking her to switch the insurance policy to the 2009 vehicle,

Flynn “relied on Krischke to make the change and believed the change was done based on their

past dealings.”

¶ 14   Count I of the complaint was for breach of contract against Shelter Mutual and alleged that

a valid contract for insurance existed between Flynn and Shelter Mutual, which covered the 2009

vehicle for damage to it by collision, for auto rental expenses, and for liability to others caused by

the vehicle. Count I further alleged that Shelter Mutual breached the contract by refusing to pay

Flynn for damage to the 2009 vehicle and for her auto rental and by refusing to pay for Flynn’s

liability to Herskovitz, “thereby making Flynn an uninsured motorist despite Flynn paying the full

premiums demanded by Shelter [Mutual] for the policy period.”

¶ 15   Count II of the complaint was for “waiver” against Shelter Mutual and alleged that Shelter

Mutual had affirmatively waived its right to deny coverage for the 2009 vehicle when it kept the

premiums Flynn paid instead of refunding the premiums or issuing a new policy for the 2009

                                                -5-
No. 1-22-1151

vehicle. Count II further alleged that Shelter Mutual waived its right to deny coverage for the 2009

vehicle by issuing evidence of insurance coverage cards on April 26, 2017, and May 9, 2017, that

listed the 2009 vehicle as the covered vehicle for the policy period effective February 16, 2017,

through August 16, 2017.

¶ 16   Count III of the complaint was for “vexatious and unreasonable conduct” under section

155 of the Illinois Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155 (West 2016)) against Shelter Mutual and

alleged that Shelter Mutual had engaged in vexatious and unreasonable conduct in denying

coverage for the collision despite issuing insurance cards showing the 2009 vehicle as a covered

vehicle and despite keeping Flynn’s insurance premiums.

¶ 17   Finally, count IV of the complaint was for negligence against Krischke and alleged that

she had a duty to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence to procure insurance on the correct

vehicle. Count IV alleged that Krischke undertook the duty to act as Flynn’s insurance agent and

to procure auto insurance for her but breached that duty by failing to make the change that Flynn

requested on October 31, 2016, which would have changed the covered vehicle on the policy.

¶ 18   Attached to Flynn’s complaint were several exhibits. First was a copy of her insurance

policy with Shelter Mutual, which states that it is “evidence of insurance as of 05/09/2017,” which

was after the March 16, 2017 collision at issue. Flynn is listed as the named insured, and Krischke

is listed as the agent. The policy lists an effective date of February 16, 2017, through August 16,

2017, and states that the “described automobile” was the 2009 vehicle. The definitions section of

the policy contains the following relevant definitions.

                                               -6-
No. 1-22-1151

             “Described auto 2 means the vehicle described in the Declarations, but only if

       a named insured owns that vehicle. It includes:

                                                   ***

                         (d) A temporary substitute auto.

                                                   ***

             Non-owned auto means any auto being used, maintained, or occupied with

       permission, other than:

                         (a) The auto listed in the Declarations;

                         (b)    An     auto    owned      by    any     insured,   or   a   resident of

                 any insured’s household; or

                         (c) An auto that any insured, or a resident of any insured’s household

                 has general consent to use.

             A rental auto is a non-owned auto if it is not an auto described by (a), (b), or (c)

       above, is not a temporary substitute auto, and otherwise meets the definition of rental

       auto.”

¶ 19   The policy also included a provision titled “Thirty-Day Temporary Insurance on

Replacement Autos,” which provided, in relevant part:

       2
           The policy denotes defined terms within the policy in boldface type.

                                                    -7-
No. 1-22-1151

           “The temporary insurance provided under this section does not apply to any claim that

       is covered by any other policy of insurance regardless of the types of coverage provided

       by that policy.

           The insurance provided by this policy with respect to the described auto applies to any

       other auto in which you acquire ownership, if it replaces the described auto and you no

       longer own the described auto. The insurance on this replacement auto includes only

       those coverages that applied to the described auto. This coverage expires at the earlier of:

                (1) 12:01 A.M. on the thirty-first day after you acquire ownership of the auto; or

                (2) The date this policy lapses.

           To obtain this temporary coverage, you must notify us, while this policy is in force,

       and within 30 days after the date you acquire ownership of the replacement auto,

       that you want this policy to apply to it.”

¶ 20   With respect to coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability coverage, the

policy provided that: “We will pay damages on behalf of an insured; but this agreement is subject

to all conditions, exclusions, and limitations of our liability, stated in this policy.” The policy

further provided, in relevant part:

           “Damages means money an insured is legally obligated to pay another person because

       of bodily injury, property damage, or consequential loss, caused by an occurrence

       resulting from that insured’s ownership, maintenance, or use, of the described auto or

       a non-owned auto.”

                                                   -8-
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 21   With respect to collision coverage, the policy provided, in relevant part:

           “We will pay the direct loss resulting from property damage to the described auto

       if it is caused by:

                       (1) Accidental upset of the described auto; or,

                       (2) Accidental collision between the described auto and another object,

                other than:

                                               ***

       But this agreement is subject to all conditions, exclusions, and limitations of our liability,

       stated in this policy.”

¶ 22   Also attached to Flynn’s complaint were several text messages between Flynn and

Krischke. One set of text messages, sent on October 17, 2016, discussed insurance coverage for

the 2010 vehicle, and one of Krischke’s responses included an image of an insurance card showing

coverage for the 2010 vehicle from October 17, 2016, through February 16, 2017. Another text

message, sent October 31, 2016, asked Krischke to “switch my car insurance to the 2009 White

Honda Civic”; there was no text from Krischke in response to this message.

¶ 23   Additionally, attached to Flynn’s complaint was a copy of a receipt for a renewal policy,

which showed that Shelter Mutual received a premium payment of $711.20 on January 24, 2017.

The “Risk Description” on the receipt listed the 2010 vehicle. Another receipt showed that Shelter

Mutual received a premium payment of $2.80 on March 29, 2017; the “Risk Description” on that

receipt listed the 2009 vehicle.

¶ 24   Finally, attached to Flynn’s complaint was an April 12, 2017 letter from Shelter Mutual.

The letter indicated that on April 6, 2017, Flynn reported a loss occurring on March 16, 2017, and

                                                -9-
No. 1-22-1151

that “[o]ur investigation revealed that you acquired a 2009 Honda Civic *** on October 22, 2016.

You were driving the 2009 Honda Civic on March 16, 2017, when you were involved in the

accident.” The letter further stated that Flynn had informed Shelter Mutual that she had traded in

the 2010 vehicle for the 2009 vehicle and that she had sent Krischke text messages on October 31,

2016, asking her to change the policy accordingly. After quoting the policy, the letter stated:

           “Based on our investigation and this policy language, Shelter [Mutual] believes the

       policy does not cover this claim. Specifically, the loss occurred outside of the 30 days of

       temporary coverage provided under your 2010 Honda Civic’s policy, for the 2009 Honda

       Civic that you acquired on October 22, 2016. After the 30 days of temporary coverage

       lapsed, you did not purchase a policy for the 2009 Honda Civic. Because no policy was

       purchased for the 2009 Honda Civic after you acquired it, and this loss did not occur during

       the available 30 day temporary coverage, there is no coverage for this accident.

           Further, the policy’s liability coverage applies to damages owed by an insured. The

       policy defines damages as money that an insured must pay because of an occurrence

       resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of the described auto. The collision

       coverage applies to property damage that results [from] an accidental collision involving

       the described auto. The policy defines described auto as the vehicle listed in

       the declarations and owned by the named insured. Here, the accident did not involve

       the described auto as the 2009 Honda was not listed in the declarations. Furthermore,

       you no longer owned the 2010 Honda, which was the vehicle listed in the declarations.

       Because the 2009 Honda cannot meet the definition of described auto, neither liability

       coverage nor collision coverage is available for this loss.

                                               - 10 -
No. 1-22-1151

           Therefore, Shelter [Mutual] denies coverage for this claim under this policy.”

       (Emphases in original.)

¶ 25   In September 2017, Shelter Mutual moved for leave to file a counterclaim for declaratory

judgment, and the court granted that motion. The court also severed Shelter Mutual’s counterclaim

and counts I, II, and III of Flynn’s complaint (the counts directed at Shelter Mutual) from count

IV of the complaint (the count concerning Krischke), and ordered the severed counts transferred

to the chancery division. However, the order granting severance was later vacated on February 1,

2018, and the matter was returned to the municipal division.

¶ 26   Later in September 2017, Shelter Mutual filed its counterclaim for declaratory judgment,

seeking an order declaring that it did not owe any duty to either reimburse Flynn for damages to

her vehicle or indemnify her for any damage to the vehicle owned by Herskovitz, arising out of

the March 16, 2017 accident. Shelter Mutual claimed that it did not owe any coverage to Flynn

because the 2009 vehicle “was neither a ‘described auto’ nor a ‘non-owned auto’ ” under the

Shelter Mutual policy and the accident occurred outside of the 30-day window for temporary

coverage under the policy. As part of its counterclaim, Shelter Mutual alleged that Flynn did not

inform Shelter Mutual of her purchase of the 2009 Civic until after the accident.

¶ 27   In March 2018, Flynn filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the counterclaim, raising

as affirmative defenses (1) the claim that Shelter Mutual’s request for declaratory judgment was

barred because it was seeking a declaration of nonliability for past conduct, which was

impermissible, (2) the doctrine of waiver, and (3) the doctrine of unclean hands based on Shelter

Mutual keeping Flynn’s premiums.

¶ 28   In answering Flynn’s affirmative defenses, Shelter Mutual admitted that Krischke was an

insurance agent for Shelter Mutual.

                                              - 11 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 29   Also in March 2018, Herskovitz filed a property damages lawsuit against Flynn arising out

of the March 16, 2017 accident. In April 2018, Shelter Mutual filed a complaint for declaratory

judgment in the chancery division of the circuit court, seeking a declaration that it did not owe any

duty to defend or indemnify Flynn with respect to Herskovitz’s lawsuit against her because (1) the

vehicle Flynn was driving at the time of the accident was neither a ‘described auto’ nor a ‘non-

owned auto’ under the Shelter Mutual policy, and (2) the accident occurred outside of the thirty-

day window for temporary coverage under the Shelter Mutual policy. Attached to Shelter Mutual’s

complaint was a March 2018, amended small-claims complaint filed in the municipal division by

Herskovitz against Flynn, alleging that Flynn had caused the accident by negligently operating her

vehicle and seeking $4606.42 in damages.

¶ 30   Shelter Mutual also filed a motion seeking to sever counts I, II, and III and Shelter Mutual’s

counterclaim in Flynn’s small-claims case and to consolidate them with its newly filed declaratory

judgment action in the chancery division. Shelter Mutual claimed that consolidation was proper

because all of the claims depended on the resolution of the question of whether Shelter Mutual

owed Flynn insurance coverage for the collision.

¶ 31   Thereafter, Flynn, in her small-claims action, moved for summary judgment with respect

to counts I, II, and III of her complaint against Shelter Mutual. In support of her motion, Flynn

attached, inter alia, her affidavit, in which she swore to the truth and accuracy of several exhibits.

One exhibit was a screenshot of text messages sent from Krischke to Flynn, which Flynn averred

that Krischke had provided to her. One message on the screenshot bore a date of October 31, 2016,

and stated: “Hi Danna. Please switch my car insurance to the 2009 White Honda Civic. With the

Vin # above.” The screenshot from Krischke’s phone does not display all of the same texts shown

                                                - 12 -
No. 1-22-1151

on the screenshots from Flynn’s phone. For example, the texts containing the 2009 vehicle’s

vehicle identification number are missing in Krischke’s screenshot.

¶ 32   The trial court denied Shelter Mutual’s motion to sever counts I, II, and III and Shelter

Mutual’s counterclaim in Flynn’s small-claims action, but it granted Shelter Mutual’s motion to

consolidate over Flynn’s objection, ordering Flynn’s small-claims action and Shelter Mutual’s

chancery action consolidated into the chancery action.

¶ 33   In June 2018, Flynn filed an answer and affirmative defenses to Shelter Mutual’s

declaratory judgment complaint, as well as a two-count counterclaim. Count I of the counterclaim

was for breach of contract and alleged that a valid insurance policy existed between Shelter Mutual

and Flynn that covered Flynn’s defense and liability to Herskovitz. Count II was for abuse of

process and alleged that Shelter Mutual had “ulterior purposes” in filing its counterclaim to Flynn’s

small claims case and seeking transfer to the chancery division; specifically, that Shelter Mutual

did so to avoid the simplified and cost-reducing procedures of the small-claims process and to

deprive Flynn of the ability to seek a quick resolution of her claims.

¶ 34   Shelter Mutual moved to dismiss count II of Flynn’s counterclaim under section 2-615 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016)), alleging that Flynn had

failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for abuse of process. On August 30, 2018,

the court dismissed count II of Flynn’s counterclaim with prejudice, finding that “[n]othing in the

Counterclaim suggests any improper use of process, citing only standard motions (all granted by

several judges) and pleadings, which are generally not actionable as abuses of process.”

¶ 35   In September 2018, Shelter Mutual filed a response to Flynn’s motion for summary

judgment on her small-claims counts and on its counterclaim in that action, as well as a cross-

motion for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment complaint and on the small-claims

                                                - 13 -
No. 1-22-1151

complaint and counterclaim. Shelter Mutual claimed that its policy did not cover the 2009 vehicle

at the time of the collision, so Shelter Mutual was entitled to summary judgment on all counts.

¶ 36   In response to Shelter Mutual’s cross-motion for summary judgment, Flynn claimed, inter

alia, that summary judgment was inappropriate until it was determined whether Krischke had the

authority to bind Shelter Mutual because, if so, her failure to act on Flynn’s request to change the

insurance coverage would be imputed to Shelter Mutual. Flynn also argued that Illinois law

required the Shelter Mutual policy to insure her for liability when driving any vehicle she owned.

Attached to Flynn’s response was a Rule 191(b) affidavit (Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(b) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013)),

averring that discovery was necessary to properly determine whether Flynn was covered under the

policy. In support of the affidavit, Flynn attached an April 14, 2017 letter sent to her by Shelter

Mutual in response to a claim she made against Krischke under Krischke’s error and omissions

policy. In the letter, Shelter Mutual stated that Krischke received text messages from Flynn

concerning a 2009 vehicle but that Krischke “thought you were just following up on the car you

had already insured. She had no reason to think or know you would switch to a different vehicle

so soon, and you did not specifically tell her you returned the 2010 [vehicle] for the 2009.” Shelter

Mutual further stated that, after investigation, it found that “Krischke acted reasonably,” “there is

an inherent risk of miscommunication” when a customer “elects to do business via text,” and the

“texts at issue here were confusing.” Shelter Mutual added that it was not reasonable for Flynn “to

just ‘assume it [, i.e., switching insurance coverage to the 2009 vehicle,] was taken care of’ with

no follow up.”

¶ 37    On May 3, 2019, the circuit court entered an order on the cross-motions for summary

judgment. The court first found that there were no material facts in dispute, finding unpersuasive

Flynn’s claims that there were questions of fact. The court found that the only factual issues raised

                                               - 14 -
No. 1-22-1151

by Flynn were waiver and Krischke’s relationship with Shelter Mutual, and it found that “[s]uch

relationship is immaterial because Flynn provides no evidence of any assurance/acceptance (or

any response whatsoever on [Shelter Mutual’s] behalf) of her text-message request to change the

covered vehicle.” Next, the court found that Flynn conceded that the vehicle she was driving was

not the vehicle listed on the policy and found that there was “no support” for the claim that Shelter

Mutual had waived any denial of the claim by keeping Flynn’s premium payments or by issuing

new insurance cards. The court stated:

                “For these reasons, the court must conclude that Shelter [Mutual] owes no duty to

       defend or indemnify Flynn in connection with the March 16, 2017 incident. Further,

       because the court finds [Shelter Mutual’s] denial of coverage was well grounded, it is also

       entitled to judgment on Flynn’s claim under 215 ILCS 5/155 (for vexatious and

       unreasonable denial of a claim).”

Accordingly, the court denied Flynn’s cross-motion for summary judgment and granted Shelter

Mutual’s cross-motion, and entered judgment in favor of Shelter Mutual and against Flynn on the

complaint and counterclaim. The court stated that its order was final and appealable.

¶ 38   Flynn appealed in May 2019, but this court dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction on

April 30, 2020. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Flynn, 2020 IL App (1st) 191123. On remand,

Shelter Mutual moved for entry of a finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar.

8, 2016) that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the court’s May 3, 2019

judgment. Also, Flynn moved on September 11, 2020, for leave to amend her counterclaim to add

counts for respondeat superior and reformation. The circuit court denied Flynn leave to amend.

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-22-1151

The court also entered a Rule 304(a) finding but stayed Flynn’s negligence claim against Krischke

pending resolution of the appeal. Flynn timely appealed.

¶ 39                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 40   “The purpose of summary judgment is to determine if a question of material fact exists.”

Fifth Third Mortgage Company v. McCord, 2021 IL App (1st) 200512, ¶ 19. Summary judgment

should only be entered where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2016). “Although

summary judgment is to be encouraged as an expeditious manner of disposing of a lawsuit, it is a

drastic measure and should be allowed only where the right of the moving party is clear and free

from doubt.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Norris, 2017 IL App (3d) 150764, ¶ 19. We review the

trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, which means we perform the same

analysis as would the trial court. Id.

¶ 41   When, as in this case, the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they agree that

only questions of law are involved and that the court may decide the issues based on the record.

Allen v. Meyer, 14 Ill. 2d 284, 292 (1958). However, the filing of cross-motions for summary

judgment does not establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact, or obligate a court to

grant summary judgment. Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28. In determining whether the

moving party is entitled to summary judgment, the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and

affidavits should be construed strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the opponent.

Kolakowski v. Voris, 83 Ill. 2d 388, 398 (1980). If the presentation allows for more than one

conclusion or inference, including one unfavorable to the movant, the motion should be denied.

Amin v. Knape & Vogt Co., Inc., 148 Ill. App. 3d 1075, 1077 (1986).

                                                - 16 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 42   On appeal, Flynn argues that summary judgment in favor of Shelter Mutual and against her

was error because (1) Shelter Mutual’s declaratory judgment claims improperly raised the same

coverage issue as its pre-suit coverage denial, supplanted an existing remedy, and deprived Flynn

of her chosen forum in small-claims court, (2) Flynn was entitled to discovery on the issue of

Krischke’s authority as Shelter Mutual’s agent, (3) Krischke’s consent to Flynn’s request to switch

her vehicle coverage was not required, (4) Krischke’s duty and Shelter Mutual’s knowledge

support reformation of the policy, and (5) Illinois law and the insurance policy require minimum

liability coverage for Herskovitz’s vehicle damages.

¶ 43   Flynn also argues that she was entitled to summary judgment against Shelter Mutual

because it waived its coverage defense and ratified and reformed the policy by issuing new

endorsements showing coverage for Flynn’s 2009 vehicle on the accident date and by failing to

return Flynn’s premiums. In addition, Flynn argues that she properly pled a claim for Shelter

Mutual’s abuse of process; the circuit court abused its discretion by denying her motion to amend

her complaint; and she is entitled to attorney fees based on Shelter Mutual’s vexatious and

unreasonable conduct.

¶ 44                    A. Summary Judgment in Favor of Shelter Mutual

¶ 45   First, Flynn argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of

Shelter Mutual because its declaratory judgment claims improperly raised the same coverage issue

as its pre-suit coverage denial, supplanted an existing remedy, and deprived Flynn of her chosen

forum in small claims court.

¶ 46   A declaratory judgment action requires (1) a plaintiff with a tangible, legal interest; (2) a

defendant with an opposing interest; and (3) an actual controversy between the parties concerning

                                              - 17 -
No. 1-22-1151

such interests. Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 372 (2003); see 735 ILCS 5/2-701 (West 2016).

For an actual controversy to exist, the case must present a concrete dispute admitting of an

immediate and definitive determination of the parties’ rights, the resolution of which will aid in

the termination of the controversy or some part thereof. Howlett v. Scott, 69 Ill. 2d 135, 141-42

(1977) (the plaintiff, who had already terminated the relationship at issue, was not entitled to

declaratory judgment because his rights were fixed). The declaratory judgment process exists so

that the court may address a controversy after a dispute has arisen but before steps are taken that

would give rise to a claim for damages or other relief. Beahringer, 204 Ill. 2d at 372-73. A suit for

declaratory judgment is premature if no actual controversy exists, but as long as the case is not one

in which the controversy has progressed so far that there is nothing left for the parties to do except

file suit for damages or other consequential relief, the controversy may still be resolved by

declaratory judgment.

¶ 47   To support her argument, Flynn cites Howlett, 69 Ill. 2d 135 (1977), which noted, inter

alia, that courts have no authority to issue advisory opinions. The court found premature a

declaratory judgment action by the then Illinois Secretary of State for a declaration that a certain

business relationship of his had not created a conflict of interest where the defendant, the then

Illinois Attorney General, had not indicated his intent to prosecute an action against the plaintiff

at the time the declaratory action was filed. The court also found that the plaintiff’s termination of

the relationship forming the basis of the suit rendered the plaintiff’s recourse through the

declaratory judgment statute inappropriate because it was not designed to provide mere

declarations of nonliability for past conduct. Id. at 143.

                                                - 18 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 48   Flynn, however, provides no analysis of Howlett or a cohesive legal argument about how

it may be applied to the instant facts to support her claim. “ ‘[A] reviewing court is entitled to have

the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument

presented. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of

argument and research.’ ” In re Marriage of Auriemma, 271 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72 (1995), quoting

Thrall Manufacturing Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Ill. App. 3d 712, 719 (1986). Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) requires a clear statement of contentions with supporting citation

of authorities. Ill-defined and insufficiently presented issues that do not satisfy the rule are

considered forfeited. Express Valet, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 373 Ill. App. 3d 838, 855 (2007).

Consequently, Flynn has forfeited review of this issue.

¶ 49   Flynn also argues that Shelter Mutual’s declaratory judgment claim improperly supplanted

“existing remedies, including as defense to an already filed small claim suit” and “deprived [her]

of the small claim court goals for simplified and inexpensive litigation.” To support this claim,

Flynn cites Charleston National Bank, Charleston v. Muller, 16 Ill. App. 3d 80, 360 (1974), which

affirmed the dismissal of the drawee bank’s declaratory judgment complaint and motion to transfer

from small claims court where a small claims suit already had been started by the depositor of a

check against the drawee bank. This case, however, is distinguishable from Muller. Here, Shelter

Mutual denied Flynn’s property claim for damage to her vehicle, and she filed suit in small claims

court. Shelter Mutual then filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment in response to that suit.

Later, when Flynn tendered the third-party liability defense of the Herskovitz lawsuit, Shelter

Mutual filed a separate declaratory judgment action in the chancery division of the circuit court,

which is one of the correct ways to respond to a tender where an insurer is denying coverage. See

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill. 2d 127, 150 (1999).

                                                - 19 -
No. 1-22-1151

Furthermore, Shelter Mutual’s counterclaim and motion to transfer to the chancery division did

not deprive Flynn of filing her claims in her chosen forum, i.e., the Circuit Court of Cook County,

and Flynn cites no relevant law or court rule that indicates the transfer within the circuit court was

improper.

¶ 50   Second and third, Flynn argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in

favor of Shelter Mutual because Flynn was entitled to discovery if there was a dispute on the issue

of Krischke’s authority as Shelter Mutual’s agent to bind it to Flynn’s request to change the vehicle

coverage. According to Flynn, Krischke’s status as Shelter Mutual’s agent was dispositive because

her assent to Flynn’s request to switch her vehicle coverage was not required to reform the policy.

We conclude that this claim by Flynn lacks merit. The record establishes that Shelter Mutual

admitted that Krischke was its agent. Furthermore, Flynn’s negligence claim against Krischke was

stayed and remains pending before the circuit court, and Flynn’s complaint did not allege claims

against Shelter Mutual based on vicarious liability for Krischke’s alleged negligence.

¶ 51   Also, the agency relationship between Krischke and Shelter Mutual was immaterial to

Flynn’s breach of contract claim against Shelter Mutual because no contract concerning coverage

for Flynn’s 2009 vehicle was formed since the evidence showed that Krischke did not even respond

to Flynn’s text message to change her vehicle coverage, let alone accept the request or assure Flynn

that the change had been made. A contract of insurance is formed where “one of the parties to such

a contract proposes to be insured and the other party agrees to insure.” Devers v. Prudential

Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 86 Ill. App. 3d 542, 544 (1980) (the agent orally assured the

insured that she would have coverage). See also Zannini v. Reliance Insurance Company of

Illinois, Inc., 147 Ill. 2d 437, 442 (1992) (the agent told the insured that coverage for the jewelry

in question would be provided); Wille v. Farmers Equitable Insurance Co., 89 Ill. App. 2d 377,

                                                - 20 -
No. 1-22-1151

379 (1967) (the agency sent the insured’s application for insurance to the insurer and told the

insured he was covered). Flynn presented no evidence that Krischke ever agreed before the

collision to procure coverage for Flynn’s 2009 vehicle. The evidence shows that Flynn’s text

message concerning her 2009 vehicle went without a response from Krischke, whereas Flynn’s

other earlier text messages had received responses from Krischke.

¶ 52   Fourth, Flynn argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of

Shelter Mutual because Krischke’s duty and Shelter Mutual’s knowledge support reformation of

the policy. Flynn, citing Talbot v. Country Life Insurance Co., 8 Ill. App. 3d 1062, 1065 (1973),

argues that Krischke had a legal obligation to act with reasonable promptness on Flynn’s

application to change the covered auto, either by providing the desired coverage or notifying her

of the rejection of the risk so that she would not be lulled into a feeling of security or put to

prejudicial delay in seeking protection elsewhere. Flynn’s argument lacks merit. As stated above,

her negligence claim against Krischke is stayed and pending in the circuit court, and she has no

claim against Shelter Mutual for vicarious liability.

¶ 53   Fifth, Flynn argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of

Shelter Mutual because Illinois law and the insurance policy require minimum liability coverage

for Herskovitz’s vehicle damages. Specifically, Flynn argues that Shelter Mutual’s 30-day

coverage provision for newly owned vehicles conflicts with sections 7-317(b)(3), 7-203, 7-601,

and 7-602 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/7-317(b)(3), 7-203, 7-601, 7-602 (West

2016)). These sections provide, respectively and in relevant part, that (1) a motor vehicle liability

policy shall insure every named insured and any other person using any motor vehicle owned by

the named insured against loss from liability from such use for $20,000 for damage to the property

of others as a result of any one accident, (2) motor vehicle insurance policies are subject to a

                                               - 21 -
No. 1-22-1151

minimum coverage of $20,000 for injury to or destruction of the property of others, (3) a policy

shall be issued in amounts no less than the minimum amounts set for destruction of property under

section 7-203, and (4) no insurer shall issue an insurance card in connection with an insurance

policy that does not provide the liability insurance coverage required under section 7-601. Id.

¶ 54   “The fundamental objective of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the

intent of the legislature.” 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 2015 IL

118372, ¶ 21. “The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the statutory language, given its

plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. “A reasonable construction must be given to each word, clause,

and sentence of a statute, and no term should be rendered superfluous.” Id. “ ‘[W]hen statutory

language is plain and certain the court is not free to give it a different meaning.’ ” Kalkman v.

Nedved, 2013 IL App (3d) 120800, ¶ 12 (quoting In re Estate of Hoehn, 234 Ill. App. 3d 627, 629

(1992)). “[A] court may not depart from the plain statutory language by reading into it exceptions,

limitations, or conditions not expressed by the legislature.” Id. “It is a ‘fundamental principle of

statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be

determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used. [Citations.]’ ”

Corbett v. County of Lake, 2017 IL 121536, ¶ 27 (quoting Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129,

132 (1993)). The terms in a statute are not to be considered in a vacuum; instead, “the words and

phrases in a statute must be construed in light of the statute as a whole, with each provision

construed in connection with every other section. [Citations]” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Id.

¶ 55   Flynn’s argument focuses on section 7-317(b)(3) of the Vehicle Code, but sections 7-

317(b)(1) and (b)(2) make clear that a liability insurance policy

                                               - 22 -
No. 1-22-1151

                 “1. Shall designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference all motor

       vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby intended to be granted;

                 2. Shall insure the person named therein and any other person using or responsible

       for the use of such motor vehicle or vehicles with the express or implied permission of the

       insured;” 625 ILCS 5/7-317(b)(1), (b)(2) (West 2016)).

¶ 56   Shelter Mutual’s policy did not violate section 7-317 because the policy adequately

described the motor vehicles with respect to which coverage was intended to be granted.

Furthermore, section 7-317 deals with minimum liability limits and ensures that those limits will

not be reduced when the operator of the vehicle is not the named insured, as is the case with

coverage under omnibus clauses. See generally State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 226 Ill. 2d 395 (2007). Section 7-317 does not concern the

legitimacy of Shelter Mutual’s described auto provision and attendant definitions under the policy.

Accordingly, we reject Flynn’s argument that Shelter Mutual’s policy provisions violate Illinois

public policy.

¶ 57   We conclude that the trial court properly granted Shelter Mutual’s summary judgment

motion against Flynn. Shelter Mutual did not owe any coverage to Flynn because the 2009 vehicle

“was neither a ‘described auto’ nor a ‘non-owned auto’ ” under the Shelter Mutual policy; the

accident occurred outside of the 30-day window for temporary coverage under the policy; and

Flynn did not inform Shelter Mutual of her purchase of the 2009 vehicle until after the accident.

After the 30 days of temporary coverage lapsed, Flynn did not purchase a policy for the 2009

vehicle. Because no policy was purchased for the 2009 vehicle after Flynn acquired it, and the

                                               - 23 -
No. 1-22-1151

accident did not occur during the available 30 day temporary coverage, there is no coverage for

that loss.

¶ 58    Further, the policy’s liability coverage applies to damages owed by an insured. The policy

defines damages as money that an insured must pay because of an occurrence resulting from

the ownership, maintenance or use of the described auto. The collision coverage applies

to property damage that results from an accidental collision involving the described auto. The

policy defines “described auto” as the vehicle listed in the declarations and owned by the named

insured. Here, the accident did not involve the described auto because the 2009 vehicle was not

listed in the declarations. Furthermore, Flynn no longer owned the 2010 vehicle, which was the

vehicle listed in the declarations. Because the 2009 vehicle could not meet the definition

of “described auto,” neither liability coverage nor collision coverage was available for this loss.

¶ 59    Therefore, Shelter Mutual did not owe Flynn coverage for her collision and liability claims

under the policy.

¶ 60                   B. Denial of Flynn’s Summary Judgment Cross-Motion

¶ 61    Flynn argues that she was entitled to summary judgment against Shelter Mutual because it

waived its coverage defense and ratified the policy by re-issuing documents stating coverage for

Flynn’s 2009 vehicle for the period covering the accident after knowing its policy defense

regarding the misdescription, which Flynn refers to as a mutual mistake. According to Flynn,

Shelter Mutual took her additional premium two weeks after the accident and then twice issued to

her evidence of insurance cards showing coverage for the 2009 vehicle for the period from

February 16, 2017, through August 16, 2017, which included the March 16, 2017 accident date.

                                               - 24 -
No. 1-22-1151

Flynn argues that the policy should be reformed for mutual mistake because Shelter Mutual waived

any right to avoid it by not seeking to rescind it.

¶ 62   Flynn contends that once Shelter Mutual learned of the mistake of the policy describing a

vehicle she did not own, Shelter Mutual should have sought rescission and returned her unearned

premiums. However, instead of returning her premiums, Shelter Mutual collected an additional

$2.80 and endorsed the policy to describe the 2009 vehicle. Flynn contends that Shelter Mutual,

by denying coverage based on the misdescription of her ownership of the 2010 vehicle through

the time of the accident, rescinded the contract for the period she did not own any described auto,

but without seeking authority from a court or returning Flynn’s premiums. Flynn argues that

Shelter Mutual cannot both rescind the policy for the period that she did not own the 2010 vehicle,

and ratify the contract by keeping those premiums.

¶ 63   “Waiver arises from an affirmative act, is consensual, and consists of an intentional

relinquishment of a known right.” Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d

307, 326 (2004). Waiver may be either expressed or implied, and arises from acts, words, conduct,

or knowledge of a party. Id.

¶ 64   First, Flynn’s argument regarding a mutual mistake lacks merit.

                “When there is a mutual mistake of fact as to a material term, the contract is

       voidable and can be rescinded by an adversely affected party unless that party bears the

       risk of the mistake. Jordan v. Knafel, 378 Ill. App. 3d 219, 234 (2007); Restatement

       (Second) of Contracts § 152 (1981). A mutual mistake exists where both parties come to

       an understanding, then, unintentionally, a drafted and signed contract fails to express the

       true agreement. Cameron v. Bogusz, 305 Ill. App. 3d 267, 272 (1999).” Alliance Property

                                                - 25 -
No. 1-22-1151

       Management, Ltd. v. Forest Villa of Countryside Condominium Ass’n, 2015 IL App (1st)

       150169, ¶ 39.

Here, there was no understanding reached regarding the 2009 vehicle before the March 2017

accident and Shelter Mutual did not know that Flynn had traded in the 2010 vehicle for the 2009

vehicle until after she filed a claim for the March 2017 accident. Consequently, there was no

mutual mistake concerning the policy for the 2010 vehicle.

¶ 65   Flynn claims that Shelter Mutual waived its coverage defense and agreed post-accident to

her vehicle change request when Shelter Mutual’s customer service department sent her, in

response to her request, two evidence of insurance cards describing her 2009 vehicle for the policy

period including the accident date. Flynn contends that “[w]here a set of facts that exist on a certain

date would allow for denial of a claim, but after that date the insurer then issues an amended

evidence of insurance card providing that coverage is effective on the date of the accident, the

policy language incorporates the amended declarations page into the policy.” Flynn cites Siwek v.

White, 388 Ill. App. 3d 152 (2009), to support her contention but her reliance on Siwek is

misplaced.

¶ 66   In Siwek, the insurance company claimed that it had cancelled an insurance policy on May

13, 2003, prior to a July 27, 2003 automobile accident involving its insured. Id. at 154. However,

the insured presented a memo from the independent insurance broker, dated May 19, 2003 (after

the supposed cancellation, but before the accident), containing an amended insurance identification

card and declaration page issued by the insurer. Id. The court found that the declaration page was

incorporated into the policy, based on language in the policy itself that so incorporated the

declarations. Id. at 159.

                                                - 26 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 67    In contrast, here, the evidence of insurance cards including the 2009 vehicle was issued

after the collision, not before like in Siwek. Moreover, Siwek does not stand for the proposition

that an insurance card is incorporated into the policy, but rather that a declaration page is, when it

is issued before the accident. “[A]n insurance card is not a substitute for the policy language,” but

is “simply a form of ‘evidence’ *** that a driver may present as proof of insurance to a ‘law

enforcement officer.’ ” American Service Insurance Co. v. Arive, 2012 IL App (1st) 111885, ¶ 13,

citing 625 ILCS 5/7-602 (West 2010) (noting that the insurance card “does not constitute any part

of [an] insurance policy”). Notably, in Arive, the court found that despite the fact that an insurance

company had not complied with the Illinois law requirement that excluded drivers be listed on the

insurance card, that omission did not void the actual exclusion in the policy. Id. ¶¶ 15-17.

¶ 68   Furthermore, the evidence of insurance cards Shelter Mutual sent to Flynn at her request

both make clear in their title—i.e., “Evidence of Insurance as of 4/26/2017,” and “Evidence of

Insurance as of 5/9/2017”—that the insurance referred to was effective after the March 16, 2017

accident. Shelter Mutual’s issuance of evidence of insurance information to Flynn when she finally

added the 2009 vehicle to her policy (after the accident) did nothing to change or alter the coverage

that was in place as of the date of the collision.

¶ 69   Moreover, Flynn argues that Shelter Mutual keeping her premium somehow constituted

waiver, but this argument has no basis in law, as evidenced by the cases relied on by Flynn. Both

cases cited by Flynn—Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Brown, 315 Ill. App. 3d 1168 (2000), and Auto-

Owners Insurance Co. v. Yocum, 2013 IL App (2d) 111267—involved the cancellation of a policy,

which is not at issue here. Flynn has not presented any legal support for her contention that Shelter

Mutual waived any coverage defenses by keeping her premiums in this case, where she simply did

                                                 - 27 -
No. 1-22-1151

not obtain coverage for her new car and, as a result, the coverage continued on her old car. Shelter

Mutual did not cancel her policy at that time. Rather, Flynn did not take the necessary steps to

insure her new car.

¶ 70   Flynn complains about Shelter Mutual’s alleged ratification and waiver based on Flynn’s

perception of Shelter Mutual’s imperfect rescission. The trial court rightly rejected any such

argument because nothing Shelter Mutual did indicated that it pursued rescission or intended to

waive its coverage denial. Section 154 of the Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/154 (West 2016)),

which governs rescission of insurance policies, allows an insurer to rescind a policy for

misrepresentations of the insured only in the first year of the policy and only if the

misrepresentations either were made with the intent to deceive or materially affect the risk assumed

by the insurer. Shelter Mutual never asserted section 154 because Shelter Mutual never sought

rescission.

¶ 71   We conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied Flynn’s cross-motion for

summary judgment.

¶ 72                                   C. Abuse of Process

¶ 73   Next, Flynn argues that the trial court erroneously dismissed her claim against Shelter

Mutual for abuse of process because she properly pled that claim by alleging that Shelter Mutual

had an ulterior purpose for seeking a declaration of its duties under its insurance policy.

Specifically, Flynn alleged that Shelter Mutual pled its defense, which was available in small

claims court, as a declaratory counterclaim to seek a transfer to the chancery division and thereby

deny Flynn her chosen small claim forum. Flynn also alleged that “(1) [Shelter Mutual] obtained

transfer and consolidation process to seek in chancery a declaration of non-liability for its past

                                               - 28 -
No. 1-22-1151

denial of Flynn’s claim which is beyond the purview of transfer and consolidation into chancery,

(2) thereby compelling Flynn to litigate her claim and [Shelter Mutual’s] defense in the chancery

division without the simplifying and inexpensive small claim process, and (3) which is something

she could not have otherwise been legally compelled to do because [Shelter Mutual] had already

denied her claim.”

¶ 74      A section 2-615 motion attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Such a motion does

not raise affirmative factual defenses but alleges only defects on the face of the complaint. Urbaitis

v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill. 2d 458, 475 (1991). In ruling on a section 2-615 motion to

dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and all reasonable

inferences that can be drawn therefrom. McGrath v. Fahey, 126 Ill. 2d 78, 90 (1988). In making

this determination, the court is to interpret the allegations of the complaint in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Id. However, this court will disregard mere conclusions of law or facts

not supported by specific factual allegations. White v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 368 Ill. App. 3d

278, 282 (2006). The question presented by a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

cause of action is whether sufficient facts are contained in the pleadings which, if established,

could entitle the plaintiff to relief. Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill. 2d 458, 475 (1991).

A cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it clearly appears that no set of

facts can be proved under the pleadings which will entitle the plaintiff to recover. Reuben H.

Donnelley Corp. v. Brauer, 275 Ill. App. 3d 300 (1995). We review de novo a trial court’s ruling

under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Poruba v. Poruba, 396 Ill. App. 3d 214, 215

(2009).

                                                - 29 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 75   The elements of a cause of action for abuse of process are (1) the existence of an ulterior

purpose or motive, and (2) some act in the use of legal process not proper in the regular prosecution

of the proceedings. Kumar v. Bornstein, 354 Ill. App. 3d 159, 165 (2004).

       “In order to satisfy the first element, a plaintiff must plead facts that show that the defendant

       instituted proceedings against him for an improper purpose, such as extortion, intimidation,

       or embarrassment. In order to satisfy the second element, the plaintiff must show that the

       process was used to accomplish some result that is beyond the purview of the process.

       [Citation.] The elements are strictly construed, as the tort of abuse of process is not favored

       under Illinois law. [Citation.]” Id. at 165-66.

“The mere filing of a lawsuit even with a malicious motive, does not constitute an abuse of

process.” Commerce Bank, N.A. v. Plotkin, 255 Ill. App. 3d 870, 872 (1994). The word “process”

is given its literal meaning and means process issued by the court, under its official seal, and is

distinguished from pleadings, which are created and filed by the litigants. Id.; see also Holiday

Magic, Inc v. Scott, 4 Ill. App. 3d 962, 967-68 (1972) (defining “process” as “any means used by

the court to acquire or to exercise its jurisdiction over a person or over specific property,” such as

a summons, and specifically finding that pleadings are not considered “process”).

¶ 76   Flynn failed to properly plead the first element of abuse of process, the existence of an

ulterior motive or purpose in Shelter Mutual’s actions in this case other than its stated motive of

seeking and obtaining a declaration of its duties under its insurance policy. Instead, Flynn pled

only conclusory allegations, without any support, that Shelter Mutual intended to avoid the small

claims court and deprive Flynn of a quick resolution of her claim. Conclusory allegations such as

these are not enough to sufficiently plead the first element of an abuse of process. See Reed v.

                                                - 30 -
No. 1-22-1151

Doctor’s Associates, Inc., 355 Ill. App. 3d 865, 875-76 (2005) (finding that conclusory allegations

that a party intended intimidation and coercion were insufficient to support a claim for abuse of

process).

¶ 77   Flynn also failed to plead that Shelter took any improper action in the use of legal process.

Instead, she alleged that Shelter Mutual’s allegations, pleadings and motions were somehow

improper because she was unable to conduct the litigation under the lax rules of the small claims

court, but allegations and pleadings do not constitute “process” under Illinois law. There was no

allegation of any misuse of “process” issued by the court. Furthermore, all the motions were

brought under and granted pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure and the circuit court’s own

rules. The law does not contemplate an action for abuse of process on the facts alleged in this case.

We therefore conclude that the circuit court was correct in determining that no action for abuse of

process had been stated by the pleadings.

¶ 78                            D. Motion to Amend Counterclaim

¶ 79   Next, Flynn argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying her motion to

amend her counterclaim after her first appeal to add claims for vicarious liability (based on

Krischke’s relation to Shelter Mutual and alleged failure to notify Flynn of rejecting her vehicle

coverage change request) and reformation of the policy on the grounds of mutual mistake (based

on “the policy conformity provision promising reformation for conflicts, and Section 154 barring

rescission on renewals”). She argues that her amendments are material and have more specific

allegations. She also argues that Shelter Mutual was not surprised because she did not move to

amend during the pleadings; her discovery, which the court had stayed before ruling on Shelter

Mutual’s summary judgment motion, went directly to Krischke’s authority as Shelter Mutual’s

agent; Flynn timely sought to amend 35 days after the case was remanded from this court; and it

                                               - 31 -
No. 1-22-1151

was her first request to amend her pleading and was not prevented by a prior non-final summary

judgment order.

¶ 80   When Flynn attempted to amend her counterclaim to add claims under respondeat superior

and reformation, the trial court denied leave, finding that Flynn did

       “not seek to cure any defects in pleading or add claims based on newly discovered

       evidence. Instead, she simply seeks to reargue her already pled and rejected theories that

       the Policy should be reformed based on a mistake and that Shelter Mutual should be bound

       by the alleged mistakes of its agent Danna Krischke. Indeed, Flynn herself argues that the

       proposed amendment ‘simply makes[s] more specific what was previously alleged.’ While

       amendment is liberally granted under Illinois law, such an attempt at a second bite at the

       apple after a summary judgment ruling on those very issues is plainly inappropriate and

       [Flynn] offers no explanation for why [she] did not seek leave to amend sooner. (Footnotes

       omitted.)”

¶ 81   The trial court shall permit pleadings to be amended upon just and reasonable terms before

or after the entry of summary judgment. 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(g) (West 2016); see also 735 ILCS

5/2-616 (West 2016)) (“At any time before final judgment amendments may be allowed on just

and reasonable terms ***.”). In order to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion,

we must look at four factors: (1) whether the proposed amendment would cure the defective

pleading, (2) whether other parties would sustain prejudice or surprise by virtue of the proposed

amendment, (3) whether the proposed amendment is timely, and (4) whether previous

opportunities to amend the pleading could be identified. Kupianen v. Graham, 107 Ill. App. 3d

373, 377 (1982). Because a trial court has broad discretion in motions to amend pleadings prior to

                                               - 32 -
No. 1-22-1151

entry of final judgment, a reviewing court will not find that denial of a motion to amend is

prejudicial error unless there has been a manifest abuse of such discretion. Loyola Academy v. S

& S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263, 274 (1992). An abuse of discretion occurs when no

reasonable person would take the position adopted by the trial court or when the trial court acts

arbitrarily, fails to employ conscientious judgment, and ignores recognized principles of law.” In

re Commissioner of Banks and Real Estate, 327 Ill. App. 3d 441, 476 (2001).

¶ 82       We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flynn’s motion

to amend. First, Flynn’s proposed amended pleading did not cure any defective pleading but,

rather, sought to plead new theories—i.e., respondeat superior and reformation of the policy.

Second, the amendment would prejudice Shelter Mutual with additional unnecessary litigation

after it defended itself against Flynn’s own appeal. Third, the amendment is untimely. Flynn had

more than three years to amend her claims but did not do so until after she lost on cross-motions

for summary judgment and after she appealed that judgment. Moreover, nothing in her motion to

amend or proposed amended pleadings explained the delay. Fourth, Flynn had ample opportunity

to amend her pleadings at any earlier time in the case because she did not identify any newly

discovered information that forms the basis for the additional counterclaims. Rather, her proposed

claims are based on facts available to her when she first filed her case against Shelter Mutual in

July of 2017.

¶ 83                                    E. Attorney Fees

¶ 84   Finally, Flynn argues that she is entitled to attorney fees based on Shelter Mutual’s

vexatious and unreasonable conduct. She states that Shelter Mutual refused coverage for Flynn’s

liability to Herskovitz, refused to defend Flynn in the Herskovitz suit, and deprived Flynn of the

                                              - 33 -
No. 1-22-1151

funds to pay her car repairs and rental expenses. She contends that Shelter Mutual’s denial of her

claims for coverage is a clear and unambiguous violation of Illinois financial responsibility law.

¶ 85   Section 155 of the Code provides, in pertinent part, for the award of attorney fees in cases

where the insurer caused an unreasonable delay in settling a claim, and it appears to the court that

such action or delay was vexatious and unreasonable. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Maryland Casualty Co.,

288 Ill. App. 3d 743, 751-52 (1997). “A court should consider the totality of the circumstances

when deciding whether an insurer’s actions are vexatious and unreasonable. Factors to consider

are the insurer’s attitude, whether the insured was forced to sue to recover, and whether the insured

was deprived of the use of her property. If a bona fide dispute existed regarding the scope of the

insurance coverage, an insurer’s delay in settling the claim may not violate section 155.”

Valdovinos v. Gallant Insurance Co., 314 Ill. App. 3d 1018, 1021 (2000). “While the question of

whether the insurer’s action and delay are vexatious and unreasonable is a factual one, it is a matter

for the discretion of the trial court; the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed unless an

abuse of discretion is demonstrated in the record.” Dark v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.,

175 Ill. App. 3d 26, 30-31 (1988).

¶ 86   Based on our above-stated analysis in this case and determinations that the circuit court did

not err in concluding that (1) Shelter Mutual owed no duty to defend or indemnify Flynn in

connection with the March 16, 2017 collision, and (2) Shelter Mutual’s denial of coverage was

well grounded, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flynn’s request for attorney

fees under section 155 of the Insurance Code (215 ILCS 5/155 (West 2016)).

¶ 87                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 88   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

                                                - 34 -
No. 1-22-1151

¶ 89   Affirmed.

                   - 35 -