Insurer’s Refusal to Defend Underlying Lawsuit Due to Unambiguous Identification of Facts in Complaint
In Lorenzo v. Capitol Indemnity, the insurer, Capitol Indemnity (“Capitol”), refused to defend a restaurant after a customer sued for being food poisoned. The only location explicitly referred to in the customer’s complaint was the Oak Brook location, and Oak Brook was not one of the 15 premises specified in the policy’s schedule of covered locations. The customer argued that due to the general language of her complaint stating “on and prior to March 28, 2006,” such language suggested that the tainted chicken was handled at one of the other 15 locations before being delivered to the Oak Brook location and that these ambiguities should be construed in her favor.
The issue before the court in Lorenzo v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. was whether it was clear from the face of Lorenzo’s underlying complaint that the allegations she set forth failed to state facts which brought the case potentially within Capitol’s coverage, thus justifying Capitol’s refusal to defend.
The court held that that the complaint unambiguously identified the restaurant in Oak Brook as the location where the customer sustained her injury, and because Oak Brook was clearly excluded from the list of locations covered under the policy, the insurer was justified in refusing to defend the underlying lawsuit.
Lorenzo v. Capitol Indemnity Corp., 401 Ill.App.3d 616, 928 N.E.2d 1274 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2010).
