{
  "id": 3524242,
  "name": "BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beatrice Foods Co. v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 83\u2014784",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "175",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 Ill. App. 3d 172"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "246 N.E.2d 38",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 Ill. App. 2d 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1596888
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/107/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 N.E.2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5602191
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/78/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. App. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5627381
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/266/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "377 Ill. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2547051
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/377/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "415 N.E.2d 1213",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 3d 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5535120
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/92/0645-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 8221,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5390749947839874e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6725550408537332
    },
    "sha256": "97c550c9558c08f62c1e07e2c4df11b146dbd19276a74281455df3864b983285",
    "simhash": "1:2b0f5a2583499910",
    "word_count": 1327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:51.597464+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE WHITE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Beatrice Foods Company, appeals from an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, and denying plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The issues raised on appeal are whether plaintiff has a \u201ccovered claim\u201d under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 73, par. 1065.82 et seq.), and whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs oral motion for leave to file an amended complaint.\nOn December 5, 1972, Eugene Allgood was killed in an automobile collision with a vehicle owned and operated by Peter Eckrich and Sons, Inc. (hereinafter Eckrich). A judgment was subsequently entered finding Eckrich liable for the wrongful death of Eugene Allgood and awarding damages of $300,000 to the personal representative of the estate of Eugene Allgood. Eckrich is a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff and a resident of Indiana. Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois.\nAt the time of the accident, plaintiff was the owner of an excess general and automobile insurance policy issued by Reserve Insurance Company (hereinafter Reserve). The policy covered plaintiff and its owned, controlled, subsidiary and affiliated companies, corporations or partnerships. As a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff, Eckrich was an insured under the Reserve policy.\nIt is undisputed that the Reserve policy covered Eckrich\u2019s liability to the estate of Eugene Allgood. Reserve, however, has not paid any monies toward satisfaction of the judgment against Eckrich and is now insolvent.\nPlaintiff paid $194,669.17 to the estate of Eugene Allgood to satisfy the judgment entered against Eckrich. Plaintiff then filed a claim with defendant to recover part of the payment made to the Allgoods. Defendant refused to pay plaintiffs claim. Plaintiff thereafter instituted this action.\nPlaintiff contends that its claim is a \u201ccovered claim\u201d under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act and consequently that defendant is obligated to pay the claim. The Illinois insurance guaranty fund act defines a covered claim as:\n\u201can unpaid claim *** for a loss arising out of and within the coverage of an insurance policy to which this Article applies and which is in force at the time of the occurrence giving rise to the unpaid claim, made by a person insured under such policy or by a person suffering injury or damage for which a person insured under such policy is legally liable, and for unearned premium, if, (a) The company issuing the policy becomes an insolvent company *** and, (b) The claimant or insured is a resident of this State at the time of the insured occurrence ***.\u201d\n(Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 73, par. 1065.84 \u2014 3.) We do not believe that plaintiff suffered a \u201closs arising out of and within the coverage\u201d of the Reserve policy. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to recover from defendant monies paid in satisfaction of the judgment against Eckrich.\nThe Reserve policy was an \u201cExcess General Automobile Insurance Policy\u201d providing plaintiff coverage against liability to third parties. The policy also covered plaintiff\u2019s subsidiaries against liability to third parties. It is undisputed that the Allgoods\u2019 judgment was within the coverage of the Reserve policy. However, the only party found liable for the wrongful death of Eugene Allgood was Eckrich. Indeed, plaintiff was not a party in the wrongful death action. It then follows that plaintiff, not being liable to a third party, could not suffer a \u201closs arising out of and within the coverage\u201d of the Reserve policy.\nPlaintiff argues that it suffered a loss because it was obligated to satisfy the judgment against its subsidiary, Eckrich. A corporation is an entity separate and distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations with which it may be connected. (Walker v. Dominick\u2019s Finer Foods, Inc. (1980), 92 Ill. App. 3d 645, 649, 415 N.E.2d 1213; see also Superior Coal Co. v. Department of Finance (1941), 377 Ill. 282; McDermott v. A.B.C. Oil Burner Sales Corp. (1932), 266 Ill. App. 115.) The shareholders of a corporation, including other corporations, will not ordinarily be held liable for the debt and obligations of the corporation. (McDermott v. A.B.C. Oil Burner Sales Corp. (1932), 266 Ill. App. 115.) Accordingly, plaintiff was not legally liable for the judgment entered against Eckrich. Plaintiff acted as a volunteer in satisfying the judgment against Eckrich. Any loss that plaintiff suffered resulted from plaintiff\u2019s actions and not from the entry of judgment against Eckrich.\nPlaintiff then argues that Eckrich suffered a \u201closs arising out of and within the coverage\u201d of the Reserve policy; that plaintiff is an insured under the Reserve policy; and that the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act does not require the person making the claim to be the person suffering the loss. We note first that Eckrich was an insured under the Reserve policy. As such, Eckrich could have brought a claim against defendant for the loss it suffered. Eckrich did not do so, however, because Eckrich could not meet the residency requirement of the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act. Plaintiff now asks to recover payments it made to satisfy the judgment against Eckrich. To allow such a recovery would be to allow plaintiff to circumvent the residency requirement of the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act. We could not allow a claim brought by plaintiff on behalf of Eckrich. Nor can we allow plaintiff to voluntarily satisfy a judgment against Eckrich, and thereafter bring a claim to recover the payment made. We are of the opinion that the insured making a claim under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act must be the person who suffered a \u201closs arising out of and within the coverage\u201d of the insurance policy. Plaintiff did not suffer a \u201closs arising out of and within the coverage\u201d of the Reserve policy. Consequently, plaintiff cannot recover monies from defendant for the payment plaintiff made in satisfaction of the judgment against Eckrich.\nWe turn now to plaintiff\u2019s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. We note that plaintiff had previously been granted leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was thus requesting leave to file a second amended complaint. We also note that plaintiff did not submit a draft of the second amended complaint to the court. Nor did plaintiff reveal orally what changes it proposed to make in the complaint. Before a trial judge can be deemed to have abused his discretion in denying leave to amend, the record must disclose that reasons or facts were presented to the trial judge as a basis for requesting the favorable exercise of the judge\u2019s discretion. The materiality of the amendment must either be apparent from the proceedings or apparent to the trial judge. (Intini v. Schwartz (1979), 78 Ill. App. 3d 575, 397 N.E.2d 84; Stevenson v. Maston (1969), 107 Ill. App. 2d 65, 246 N.E.2d 38.) In the present case, no facts or reasons were presented to the trial judge as a basis for requesting leave to amend. Moreover, we are of the opinion that with the facts of this case no amendment of the complaint would state a \u201ccovered claim\u201d under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act. Consequently, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.\nSince we find that plaintiff did not have a \u201ccovered claim\u201d under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant.\nAffirmed.\nRIZZI, P.J., and McNAMARA, J., concur.\nThe maximum recovery under the Illinois insurance guaranty fund act is $100,000.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE WHITE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack F. Clifford and Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Jack F. Clifford and John W. Clifford, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (Richard E. Mueller, Hugh C. Griffin, Don W. Fowler, and Barbara A. McDonald, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 83\u2014784\nOpinion filed February 29, 1984.\nJack F. Clifford and Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Jack F. Clifford and John W. Clifford, of counsel), for appellant.\nLord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (Richard E. Mueller, Hugh C. Griffin, Don W. Fowler, and Barbara A. McDonald, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 194,
  "last_page_order": 197
}