{
  "id": 2466533,
  "name": "ALLIANZ VERSICHERUNGS-AG, as Subrogee of Winker and Dunnebier, GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Allianz Versicherungs-Ag v. Federal Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201489\u20141082",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 Ill. App. 3d 421"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "239 N.E.2d 498",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. App. 2d 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2476435
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/97/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.E.2d 614",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill. App. 3d 1002",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5314091,
        5313487
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/1/1002-02",
        "/ill-app-3d/1/1002-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 356,
    "char_count": 6035,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29080112392653007
    },
    "sha256": "b3d0fc32c0db6923f6f8ea73cca33b5700fb398dd1cfc144f824a9e0cbaeb7b3",
    "simhash": "1:5e2bca4e17079fd1",
    "word_count": 913
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:12.040900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ALLIANZ VERSICHERUNGS-AG, as Subrogee of Winker and Dunnebier, GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFederal Insurance Company (Federal) refused to defend an insured against a contribution action, based on policy exclusions, and the subroge\u00e9 of the insured, Allianz Versicherungs-AG (Allianz), brought a declaratory judgment action against Federal. Allianz and Federal filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the trial court denied Allianz\u2019s motion and granted Federal\u2019s, ruling that Federal had no duty to defend or indemnify. For the reasons below, we affirm.\nOn July 3, 1989, Lillian Holland was injured by an envelope-folding machine while working for her employer, Westvaco, located in North Chicago, Illinois. Holland sued the distributors and manufacturers of the machine, Winkler & Dunnebier Company, and Berkley Machine Company, alleging negligence and strict liability for making modifications in the machine and failing to train Westvaco employees.\nWinkler & Dunnebier counterclaimed against Berkley, which tendered the counterclaim to its general liability insurer, Federal. Berkley\u2019s policy provided in relevant part:\n\u201c[Federal] will pay on behalf of [Berkley] all sums which [Berkley] shall become obligated to pay as damages by reason of *** bodily injury, property damage or personal injury caused by an occurrence and [Federal] shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against [Berkley] seeking damages on account of such bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, even if any of the allegations of the said suit are groundless, false or fraudulent ***.\u201d\nThe policy excluded coverage for products liability claims, however, where\n\u201cthe bodily injury or property damage occurs away from the premises owned by or rented by [Berkley] and after physical possession of [Berkley\u2019s] products have been relinquished to others.\u201d\nBased on the policy exclusions, Federal refused to defend or indemnify Berkley. Holland\u2019s action was settled for $220,000, $209,000 of which was assessed against Berkley.\nBerkley assigned its rights against Federal to Winkler & Dunne-bier, and the settlement was paid by Winkler & Dunnebier\u2019s insurer, Allianz. Allianz then brought a declaratory judgment action against Federal, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Allianz\u2019s motion and granted Federal\u2019s, ruling that Federal had no duty to defend or indemnify. Allianz appeals.\nThe trial court found that the allegations of the complaint showed that the injury occurred off Berkley\u2019s premises, and after the machine was no longer in Berkley\u2019s possession, placing the claims within the policy exclusions and excluding any potential coverage. We agree.\nAn insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify where the underlying complaint affirmatively alleges facts which, if true, exclude any potential coverage under the policy. (Fragman Construction Co. v. Preston Construction Co. (1971), 1 Ill. App. 3d 1002, 274 N.E.2d 614; Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Murray (1968), 97 Ill. App. 2d 61, 72, 239 N.E.2d 498.) Here, the complaint alleged that \u201con or prior to July 3, 1980, [Berkley had] sold and/or leased\u201d the machine that caused Ms. Holland\u2019s injury to \u201cWESTVACO, U.S. Envelope Division, Sheridan Road and 10th Street, North Chicago, Illinois.\u201d The complaint also alleged that Ms. Holland was injured \u201cwhile in the course of her duties at WESTVACO, U.S. Envelope Division.\u201d The products liability count further alleged that the machine was in the possession of Westvaco when the injury occurred. Based on the allegations, it appears clear that the machine was off Berkley\u2019s premises at the time of the injury, and that, whether the machine had been sold or leased, Berkley had relinquished possession to Westvaco. Thus, both the negligence and products liability claims were within the policy exclusions, and there was no potential coverage.\nAllianz argues, however, that because the word \u201cat\u201d may mean in the employ of, as well as its ordinary meaning, designating a physical location, it was possible to infer that the locus of Ms. Holland\u2019s injury was not necessarily the Westvaco plant in North Chicago. Therefore, Allianz contends, it was possible to interpret the complaint to mean that the injury happened merely at a time when Ms. Holland was employed by Westvaco, and that the machine could still have been on Berkley\u2019s premises in Kansas City, bringing the complaint potentially within coverage. We are not persuaded.\nDetermination of potential coverage depends, not on the semantics of the complaint, but the facts alleged, interpreting the words according to their ordinary meanings. Here, the complaint alleged that Westvaco was located in North Chicago and that Ms. Holland was injured while at work. The most reasonable inference, therefore, was that the locus of Ms. Holland\u2019s injury was North Chicago, and not Berkley\u2019s premises in Kansas City, and nothing in the complaint suggested a contrary interpretation. Federal justifiably refused to defend or indemnify Berkley. Because Federal\u2019s refusal was justified, it is unnecessary to address Allianz\u2019s argument that Federal was estopped to deny coverage.\nFinally, Federal contends, without merit, that Allianz lacked standing to challenge its refusal to defend because Allianz failed to conform to section 2\u2014403 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2\u2014403). Section 2\u2014403, although mandatory, is not jurisdictional. Allianz was properly before the court.\nThe trial court properly granted Federal\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nAffirmed.\nCAMPBELL and MANNING, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE O\u2019CONNOR"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert D. Kolar & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Robert D. Kolar, Thomas M. Sheehan, and Michele T. Oshman, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Brinton, Bollinger & Ruberry, of Chicago (John D. Kuhn, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ALLIANZ VERSICHERUNGS-AG, as Subrogee of Winker and Dunnebier, GMBH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 1\u201489\u20141082\nOpinion filed May 7, 1990.\nRehearing denied August 8, 1990.\nRobert D. Kolar & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Robert D. Kolar, Thomas M. Sheehan, and Michele T. Oshman, of counsel), for appellant.\nBrinton, Bollinger & Ruberry, of Chicago (John D. Kuhn, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 449,
  "last_page_order": 452
}