{ "id": 4022676, "name": "WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT LONG, Defendant-Appellant (Janice Aeschlimann, Adm'r of the Estate of Sara L. Aeschlimann, Defendant)", "name_abbreviation": "Westfield National Insurance v. Long", "decision_date": "2004-06-10", "docket_number": "No. 2-03-0556", "first_page": "987", "last_page": "992", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "348 Ill. App. 3d 987" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 971", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927695 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "978" }, { "page": "978" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/0971-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 Ill. App. 3d 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3596668 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/126/0150-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 N.J. Super. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Super.", "case_ids": [ 96155 ], "weight": 14, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319-20" }, { "page": "287-88" }, { "page": "320" }, { "page": "288" }, { "page": "318" }, { "page": "287" }, { "page": "320-21" }, { "page": "288" }, { "page": "322" }, { "page": "289" }, { "page": "322" }, { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-super/350/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "941 F.2d 886", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 11719646 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/941/0886-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 F.3d 440", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 487 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "444-45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/87/0440-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 Ill. App. 3d 1022", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 333091 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1026" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/267/1022-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 1092", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073574 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1094" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/1092-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 Ill. App. 3d 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3718543 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "314" }, { "page": "314" }, { "page": "314" }, { "page": "314" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/343/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 Ill. 2d 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 243917 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" }, { "page": "138" }, { "page": "138" }, { "page": "138" }, { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/186/0127-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 548, "char_count": 10590, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.867707110208239e-08, "percentile": 0.499015386611343 }, "sha256": "1e87785ad51737857bcb093eee9aca544b57ad3e8f9780f870aa31b9a8bca823", "simhash": "1:81e9df7e33746cf8", "word_count": 1713 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:23:16.717830+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT LONG, Defendant-Appellant (Janice Aeschlimann, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Sara L. Aeschlimann, Defendant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KAPALA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Robert Long, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Du Page County granting judgment on the pleadings (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615(e) (West 2002)) in favor of plaintiffs, Westfield National Insurance Company and Westfield Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed this suit against defendant, their insured, for a declaration (see 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 701 (West 2002)) that they have no duty to defend or indemnify him in an underlying suit alleging defendant\u2019s liability under the Drug Dealer Liability Act (the Act) (740 ILCS 57/5 et seq. (West 2002)). We affirm.\nFACTS\nOn May 13, 2002, Janice Aeschlimann (Janice), the plaintiff in the underlying suit, filed a first amended complaint (the Aeschlimann complaint) against defendant and others for acts that led to the death of Sara L. Aeschlimann (Sara), Janice\u2019s daughter. The Aeschlimann complaint alleged that on May 14, 2000, Garrett Harth (Harth) placed a methamphetamine drug in Sara\u2019s drink, causing a toxic overdose that caused her death. Count VII of the Aeschlimann complaint was directed against defendant and alleged that defendant \u201cknowingly participated in the chain of distribution of an illegal drug that was actually digested by the [p]laintiff s decedent, Sara L. Aeschlimann.\u201d Upon being sued, defendant tendered the suit to plaintiffs for defense and indemnification. Westfield National Insurance Company insured defendant under a homeowner\u2019s policy that was in effect at the time of Sara\u2019s death. Westfield Insurance Company insured defendant under a personal umbrella policy, also in effect at the time of Sara\u2019s death. Both policies contained the following exclusion:\n\u201cWe do not provide coverage for: Bodily injury *** arising out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession by any person of a Controlled Substance(s) as defined by the Federal Food and Drug Law.\u201d\nPlaintiffs filed their declaratory judgment suit on August 13, 2002, seeking a declaration that the above exclusion, among others enumerated in the policies, relieved them from their duty to defend or indemnify defendant. After defendant filed an answer to the declaratory judgment complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the drug exclusion, ruling that the allegations against defendant in the Aeschlimann complaint \u201cfall squarely\u201d within this exclusion. Defendant filed a timely appeal.\nDISCUSSION\nA motion for judgment on the pleadings under section 2 \u2014 615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615(e) (West 2000)) is like a motion for summary judgment is limited to the pleadings. Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Ehlco Liquidating Trust, 186 Ill. 2d 127, 138 (1999). Judgment on the pleadings is proper if the admissions in the pleadings disclose that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Employers Insurance, 186 Ill. 2d at 138. For purposes of resolving the motion, the court must consider as admitted all well-pleaded facts set forth in the pleadings of the nonmoving party and the fair inferences drawn therefrom. Employers Insurance, 186 Ill. 2d at 138. The court must also examine the pleadings to determine whether an issue of material fact exists and, if not, determine whether the controversy can be resolved solely as a matter of law. Employers Insurance, 186 Ill. 2d at 138. Copies of written instruments attached to a pleading as an exhibit are considered a part of the pleading. Employers Insurance, 186 Ill. 2d at 139. Our review of the disposition of a case on judgment on the pleadings is de novo. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co. v. Heaven\u2019s Little Hands Day Care, 343 Ill. App. 3d 309, 314 (2003).\nInsurance policies are to be liberally construed in favor of coverage. Mount Vernon, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 314. The duty of an insurer to defend its insured is much broader than its duty to indemnify. Mount Vernon, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 314. When determining whether the insurer has a duty to defend, the court must compare the allegations contained in the underlying complaint to the language contained in the policy. Mount Vernon, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 314. An insurer has no duty to defend its insured if the underlying complaint alleges facts that, if true, would exempt the insured from coverage under the policy. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Chiczewski, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 1094 (1998).\nDefendant contends that the drug exclusion in the insurance policies does not apply because the allegations of the Aeschlimann complaint do not directly link defendant, to the act that caused Sara\u2019s death. The Aeschlimann complaint seeks to hold defendant liable in money damages under the Act. One of the purposes of the Act is to provide a civil remedy for damages to persons in a community injured as a result of illegal drug use. 740 ILCS 57/5 (West 2002). To foster this purpose, the legislature provided that \u201c[a] person who knowingly participates in the illegal drug market within this State is liable for civil damages as provided in this Act.\u201d 740 ILCS 57/20(a) (West 2002). The Act defines \u201cillegal drug market\u201d as \u201cthe support system of illegal drug related operations, from production to retail sales, through which an illegal drug reaches the user.\u201d 740 ILCS 57/15 (West 2002). \u201cIllegal drug\u201d means a drug whose distribution is a violation of State law. 740 ILCS 57/15 (West 2002). We are not called upon to decide whether defendant is liable under the Act, but whether he would potentially be covered by plaintiffs\u2019 insurance policies. See Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Clarendon Insurance Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1026 (1994).\nThe Aeschlimann complaint alleges the following against defendant:\n\u201c2. Defendant, Robert Long, knowingly distributed in the chain of distribution an illegal drug that was actually digested by the [pllaintiff s decedent, Sara L. Aeschlimann.\n3. Defendant, Robert Long, knowingly participated in the chain of distribution of an illegal drug that was actually digested by the [pllaintiffs decedent, Sara L. Aeschlimann.\u201d\nThe policies exclude coverage for bodily injury \u201carising out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession by any person of a Controlled Substance(s) as defined by the Federal Food and Drug Law.\u201d The Aeschlimann complaint alleges distribution and participation in distribution, activities that clearly fall within the sale, delivery, transfer, or possession of methamphetamine, which defendant concedes is a controlled substance under the federal statute. See United States v. Carlson, 87 F.3d 440, 444-45 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Durham, 941 F.2d 886, 888-89 (9th Cir. 1991).\nNo Illinois court has considered a similar policy drug exclusion. In Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super. 316, 795 A.2d 286 (2002), the New Jersey appellate court construed a drug exclusion that is similar to the exclusion in our case. The facts in Brenner, however, are distinguishable. There, Brenner and his cohorts went to the home of a marijuana dealer with the express purpose of acquiring marijuana, either for free or by theft. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 319-20, 795 A.2d at 287-88. During the attempt to obtain the marijuana, one of Brenner\u2019s companions shot and killed the drug dealer. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 320, 795 A.2d at 288. The drug dealer\u2019s mother commenced a wrongful death suit against Brenner and the others involved. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 318, 795 A.2d at 287. Brenner was insured under a Prudential policy, and Prudential sought a declaration that the drug exclusion excluded coverage of the shooting incident. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 320-21, 795 A.2d at 288. The court held that the language of the exclusion was clear and unambiguous, saying that coverage is excluded for injuries \u201cwhich arise out of, are connected with, or are incident to the use and possession of illicit drugs.\u201d Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 322, 795 A.2d at 289. The court held that even the attempt to gain illegal drugs was excluded from coverage because Brenner\u2019s actions were wholly focused on the use and possession of illicit drugs, and it is this activity which the exclusion clearly and expressly addresses. Brenner, 350 N.J. Super, at 322, 795 A.2d at 289. In contrast, defendant\u2019s actions in our case are alleged to have been focused directly on the distribution of illegal drugs, which clearly falls within the language \u201csale, delivery, transfer, or possession\u201d found in the exclusion in plaintiffs\u2019 policies.\nDefendant next contends that the phrase in the exclusion, \u201carising out of,\u201d is vague and ambiguous and should be construed in favor of coverage. Defendant relies on Maryland Casualty Co. v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 126 Ill. App. 3d 150, 154 (1984), for the proposition that the phrase \u201carising out of\u2019 in an insurance policy is both broad and vague and must be liberally construed in favor of the insured. Plaintiffs dispute this application to the present facts and argue that the logic employed by Maryland, which involved construction of a policy that granted coverage, is not applicable when construing the language of an exclusion. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Smiley, 276 Ill. App. 3d 971, 978 (1995), we interpreted the phrase \u201carising out of\u2019 when used in an exclusionary clause of an insurance policy and held that the phrase is not ambiguous as a matter of law but should be given a limited interpretation in favor of the insured. We defined the phrase to mean \u201c \u2018[t]o spring up, originate ***\u2019 [citation], or \u2018to come into being,\u2019 \u2018to come about: come up: take place\u2019 [citation].\u201d Smiley, 276 Ill. App. 3d at 978. Applying our definitions in Smiley, it is clear that Sara\u2019s death arose out of the sale, delivery, transfer, or possession of methamphetamine. The only activity alleged against defendant in the Aeschlimann complaint is his distribution of the illegal drug. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings.\nAffirmed.\nBYRNE and GILLERAN JOHNSON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KAPALA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Reese J. Peck, of Rathje & Woodward, of Wheaton, for appellant.", "Richard T. Valentino and James W. Fessler, both of O\u2019Hagan, Smith & Amundsen, L.L.C., of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ROBERT LONG, Defendant-Appellant (Janice Aeschlimann, Adm\u2019r of the Estate of Sara L. Aeschlimann, Defendant).\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201403\u20140556\nOpinion filed June 10, 2004.\nReese J. Peck, of Rathje & Woodward, of Wheaton, for appellant.\nRichard T. Valentino and James W. Fessler, both of O\u2019Hagan, Smith & Amundsen, L.L.C., of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0987-01", "first_page_order": 1005, "last_page_order": 1010 }