Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

2014 IL 116389 (IL. 2014)

Words & Phrases

Choice Of Law

Trial Judge

Hon. Rita Novak

Appellate Judge

Justice Burke

Holding

Indiana law did not conflict with Illinois law regarding whether violations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act were covered as advertising injury.

Fact Summary

 

Under Illinois law, State Farm has a duty to defend the underlying complaint pursuant to the insurance policy’s “advertising injury” and “property damage” coverage. See Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc., 223 Ill. 2d 352 (2006) (coverage provided under the advertising injury provision); Insurance Corp. of Hanover v. Shelborne Associates, 389 Ill. App. 3d 795 (2009) (coverage provided under the property damage provision).

 Where there were no state court cases on an insurance-coverage issue, two unreported cases from a federal district court within that state which purported to predict how the state’s highest court would rule were not state law and did not create a conflict with the law of a neighboring jurisdiction so as to call for significant-contacts analysis—Erie.

 

Back