"but only with respect to . . . liability because of acts or omissions of [a named] insured" (emphasis added). Casualty would have that provision read as though "only" were moved to a different place in the paragraph: "but with respect to his or its liability because of acts or omissions only of [an] insured . . . ." According to Casualty, Vulcan's own negligence bars it from coverage because paragraph (d) covers third parties only when the named insured is solely responsible for the accident.
Like every effort to read a document by first changing its language, Casualty's proffered interpretation is wholly unpersuasive. "Only" in paragraph (d) clearly refers to the "with respect to" clause that follows it immediately. Rather than insuring the world generally, paragraph (d) insures the world only when its liability arises because of acts or omissions of an insured. Casualty's repositioning of the word "only" may get points for creativity, but it is wholly arbitrary and is unsupported by any grammatical analysis known to this Court.
That is not the end of the story, however. Casualty's argument touches on (but never hits on the head) the equally obvious flaw in Vulcan's argument. Vulcan too would distort the Policy's language -- in its case, not the word "only" but rather the words "because of." What does it mean to say that Vulcan's liability arises "because of" Sandman's acts or omissions?
If Sandman had not sent Giguere to Gary that day (and sending him was surely an "act . . . of an insured"), there would have been no accident (at least not involving Giguere), and of course Vulcan would not have been sued. But surely that kind of causal nexus cannot be the "because of" relationship between Sandman's acts and Vulcan's potential liability of which the Policy speaks. Under such a reading, Casualty would have to provide coverage to all parties concerned in any accident involving a Casualty-insured vehicle.
No such reading is rational -- the common legal usage of "causation" stems from just such considerations.
In the normal sense of the language employed by the Policy, Vulcan's liability "because of" Sandman's acts or omissions can exist only if Vulcan bears some legal responsibility for Sandman's acts. In the legal (and sensible) sense only Vulcan's own acts, or the acts of others for whom Vulcan is viewed as responsible, can "cause" (that is, can give rise to) liability on Vulcan's part. Paragraph (d) is plainly a vicarious liability provision and nothing more: It insures all those who may be vicariously liable for acts or omissions of the named insured (or of other persons insured under the other paragraphs not involved in this case -- paragraphs (b) and (c)).
Nothing provided to this Court even hints at any basis for finding Vulcan vicariously liable for Sandman's acts. Sandman was not employed by or acting as an agent for Vulcan, nor was there any other legal relationship between the two that would offer an alternate basis of vicarious liability.
This opinion has proceeded on the basis of the plain meaning of Policy language, both because that approach comports with logic and because no case law appears to bear on the question. Neither party points to any Illinois case interpreting paragraph (d). Estes Co. of Bettendorf, Iowa v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 79 Ill. 2d 228, 402 N.E.2d 613, 37 Ill. Dec. 611 (1980) did deal with the identical "persons insured" section and the need to decide whether paragraph (d) applied. But Estes, 79 Ill.2d at 235, 402 N.E.2d at 616 ultimately found that provision inapplicable because it could not identify "an insured under (a), (b) or (c)" (a prerequisite to any paragraph (d) applicability). Although there also appeared to be no basis for vicarious liability in Estes, the court never had occasion to consider the issue identified in this opinion.
Nothing in Estes affects the analysis here.
Although both parties have raised other issues in their briefings, none of them needs to be addressed. Whether Giguere was actually "unloading" at the time of the accident is irrelevant
because the possibility of coverage under paragraph (c) (even via paragraph (d)) has been ruled out. It is likewise irrelevant whether any employer-employee exclusion bars application of the Policy.
One final issue raised by Vulcan is whether Casualty has waived any Policy defenses. However, Casualty has consistently refused to accept the tendered defense, and this opinion has decided it was right in doing so. Under such circumstances Vulcan has stated no facts giving rise to waiver. It cannot rely on Gibraltar Insurance Co. v. Varkalis, 115 Ill. App. 2d 130, 253 N.E.2d 605 (1st Dist. 1969), where an insurer was held to have waived defenses by appearing in the underlying case without a reservation of rights (see also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peppers, 64 Ill. 2d 187, 195, 355 N.E.2d 24, 29 (1976)).
Casualty never had an obligation to defend, nor did it undertake one (see Associated Indemnity, 68 Ill.App.3d at 817, 386 N.E.2d at 537).
There is no genuine issue of material fact here. This Court hereby declares that Vulcan is not a "person insured" under the Policy, so that Casualty has no duty to defend Vulcan in the Giguere lawsuit against Vulcan. Casualty is therefore entitled to a judgment to that effect as a matter of law.
Date: September 29, 1989