G.M. Sign, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

2014 IL App (2d) 130593 (Ill. App., 2014)

Words & Phrases

Exclusions: TCPA

Trial Judge

Hon. Diane E. Winter and David M. Hall

Appellate Judge

Justice Zenoff

Holding

No coverage for conversion and consumer fraud counts because they arise out of excluded faxing.

Fact Summary

The trial court ruled that State Farm had a duty to defend and indemnify.  The Illinois appellate court reversed in G.M. Sign, Inc. v. State Farm, 2014 Il App (2d) 130593.  The appellate court found there was no duty to defend the TCPA Suit because the conversion and Illinois Consumer Fraud counts arose from the same acts as the alleged violation of the TCPA.  Because the exclusion was for property damage or advertising injury “arising directly or indirectly” out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate the TCPA, it applied to the other counts.  “But for” the sending of the faxes, plaintiff would have suffered no injury because the only act or omission alleged is sending the faxes.  Because there was no duty to defend, there was no estoppel.

Back