Hepler Broom, LLC

Illinois Appellate Court Permits Insured to Prove Terms of Missing Policies with Specimen Coverage Forms for the Missing Policy Periods

March 28, 2018

Environmental contamination lawsuits frequently involve polluting activities which took place decades ago – long before the advent of computers and before it was possible for businesses to store information in an electronic format. When these lawsuits arise and a claim is tendered to an insurance carrier for defense and indemnity, the parties often struggle to verify the existence and terms of any applicable insurance policies in light of the ease with which paper documents can be misplaced over the years. The inability of the parties to locate complete copies of all potentially applicable policies often results in litigation, requiring the courts to determine if sufficient evidence exists to prove the existence and terms of the missing policies.

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, recently addressed what evidence is legally sufficient to establish the existence and terms of missing insurance policies in its recent opinion in The Travelers Indemnity Co., et al. v. Rogers Cartage Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 160780. Rogers Cartage was a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage for a pair of environmental contamination lawsuits arising from the insured’s activities at two truck cleaning facilities. The lawsuits concerned the insured’s activities from 1960 through 1966; however, the parties could only locate the policies in effect for the policy periods of 1960-1961 and 1965-1966.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that in cases involving missing policies, it is the insured’s burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence both the existence of the policies and their material terms and conditions. As to the existence of CGL policies from 1961 to 1965, the Court of Appeals held that the insured met its burden of proof by presenting a Certificate of Insurance from 1962 for an excess policy which referenced a primary policy issued by Travelers during that policy period. The insured also presented a letter written by a claims adjuster which referenced “secondary evidence” of the policies’ existence, including a “renewal policy number” on the 1965-1966 policy, which indicated the existence of prior policies. Finally, there was no evidence that the insured had any other primary CGL policies during the relevant periods. The Court of Appeals found this evidence sufficient to determine that it was more likely than not that Travelers issued consecutive CGL policies from 1960 to 1966.

With regard to the terms of the policies, the Court of Appeals held that the 1961-1962 and 1965-1966 “bookend” policies, coupled with specimen policies from the missing policy periods that contained substantially the same terms as the bookend policies, supplied sufficient proof of the terms and conditions of the missing policies. In the absence of evidence of material differences between the policies, “it is reasonable to infer that a renewal policy is renewed on the same terms and conditions as the previous policy unless otherwise stated.” This is so even if there is evidence of different coverage endorsements among the known policies so long as the endorsements do not reflect “material differences affecting coverage.”

Opinions addressing the sufficiency of evidence in missing policy cases are obviously highly fact-specific. The Rogers Carthage opinion is notable in that it appears to be the first time Illinois courts have permitted the insured to prove the terms of missing policies by pointing to specimen coverage forms for the missing policy periods, even when the known policies contain different coverage endorsements. While the burden of proof remains with the insured, the Rogers Carthage opinion may signal a sea change with regard to the scope of acceptable evidence to prove the terms of missing policies.

COVID-19 Updates

HeplerBroom LLC COVID-19 Response

HeplerBroom has been diligently working on its response and continuity plan to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to keep the health and safety of our employees, their families, and our clients as our top priority.

To help ensure everyone’s continued health and well-being, effective Tuesday, March 17, 2020, all attorneys and staff will be working remotely until March 31. This is an unprecedented and dynamic situation, and HeplerBroom is committed to observing governmental suggestions and requirements concerning public health while continuing to provide legal service second to none.

To ensure this, the firm has identified essential personnel in each office who will make certain that critical firm functions that cannot be done remotely continue to be handled. We have put in place protocol for those essential personnel to make sure they are keeping healthy per the CDC cleaning and sanitizing recommendations. All teams have back-up personnel and procedures that we will follow to make sure all deadlines are met and clients receive the same great service and work product that we have always been proud to provide.

HeplerBroom’s IT department has been working hard to make sure all remote employees are set up with equipment and access from home to limit disruption to our clients. Maintaining security and confidentiality has remained, and will continue to remain, at the forefront of all processes and procedures, at all levels throughout the firm.

The firm has created emergency communication measures to communicate any changes to this plan to employees and are communicating on a regular basis with any and all new resources and helpful information during this uncertain time.

During these fluid and unpredictable times, HeplerBroom will continue its commitment to great service and results for our clients, all while keeping safe and healthy.

Wishing you and your families good health.