Craney Law Group Attorney Publishes Article in the October 2018 Issue of <i>The Policy</i>

Craney Law Group Associate, Joshua A. Edelson, contributed to the October 2018, vol. 63, no. 2 issue of The Policy, distributed by the Illinois State Bar Association to all its member, by authoring for publication a thorough analysis and review of a recently decided 1st District Illinois Appellate Court case – Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Nwidor, 2018 IL App (1st) 171378 (May 27, 2018).  In Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Nwidor, the Insurer filed a declaratory judgment against the alleged Insured seeking determination of whether the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (“IIGF”) covered the cab company relating to an underlying suit for damages from collision between a taxi and motorcycle. The insurance policy that would have applied, originally issued by Ullico Insurance Co. (which had gone into liquidation), was transferred from the taxi involved in the collision to a replacement vehicle prior to the date of collision, and thus taxi involved was not covered at time of accident. The First District affirmed and held that IIGF had not waived the coverage defense based on the endorsement that removed the accident vehicle from coverage and that it was not estopped from raising this defense and that there was no evidence that IIGF’s 11-month delay in reserving rights caused any prejudice (nor was there any evidence that the defense offered by IIGF was defective in any respect so as to cause any prejudice). Thus, the cab company failed to establish its defense of estoppel. And, the Court found that the policy endorsement transferred the coverage for the subject taxi to a replacement vehicle prior to the date of the accident, October 5, 2011, thereby defeating coverage for the accident.  The Policy is a newsletter of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Section on Insurance Law and provides summaries of every insurance opinion applying Illinois law either by an Illinois State Appellate Court or by the Seventh Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. For a more in depth analysis of this case and others, see the October 2018, vol. 63, no. 2 issue of The Policy.