Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

A.J. Maggio Co. v. Willis

May 23, 2000

A.J. MAGGIO COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
COY WILLIS, D/B/A WILLIS CONSTRUCTION; DEBRA L. TENNANT AND HAROLD E. TENNANT, D/B/A TENNANT INSURANCE AGENCY; AND ILLINOIS EMCASCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County No. 95 L 15452 The Honorable John W. Gustafson and Honorable James F. Henry, Judges Presiding.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Cousins

The Board of Education of Reed-Custer Community Unit School District 255U (School) entered into a contract with A.J. Maggio Co. (Maggio), a general contractor, for the construction of Braidwood Middle School, in Braidwood, Illinois. Maggio subcontracted with Willis Construction (Willis) to construct and install a sanitary and storm sewer. Willis is owned by Coy Willis.

Pursuant to the contract between Willis and Maggio, Willis agreed that if the materials or workmanship it furnished were deemed inadequate, Willis would perform the necessary corrective work. If Willis failed to make these corrections, Maggio could deduct the cost sustained in making the necessary corrective work from the amount due Willis. If this amount was insufficient to reimburse Maggio, Willis agreed to pay the outstanding balance owing Maggio.

The contract between Maggio and Willis also required Willis to carry comprehensive general liability insurance and to name Maggio and others as additional insureds under the policy. Willis retained Tennant Insurance Agency (Tennant) to acquire the insurance. The insurance policy Tennant procured for Willis was written by Illinois Emcasco Insurance Company (Emcasco) and provided coverage from September 11, 1991, through September 11, 1992. The policy provided the correct type of insurance but failed to provide coverage to Maggio as mandated by the contract between Maggio and Willis.

Tennant issued a certificate of insurance to Maggio, which stated that Maggio was an additional insured on the policy, but Maggio was not named as an additional insured on the policy. Subsequent to receiving the certificate of insurance, Maggio made requests to Tennant to be placed on the insurance policy as an additional insured. The architect and School were added to the policy on May 18, 1992, yet Maggio was not.

Emcasco renewed the policy from September 11, 1992, through September 11, 1993. Again, Maggio was not named as an additional insured. Maggio alleges that Emcasco failed to add Maggio to the policy after being requested to do so.

Shortly after Willis completed installation of the sanitary and storm sewer, sinkholes began to appear under driveways and sidewalks. Maggio requested Willis to perform the necessary corrective work. Willis refused. Maggio was subsequently notified by the School on October 12, 1993, to perform the corrective work within seven days or the School would perform the repairs and back charge Maggio. Under its contract with the School, Maggio was required to correct Willis' defective work. Subsequently, Maggio hired another company to perform the repairs and incurred a bill of $497,067. Maggio billed Willis. However, Willis refused to pay and Maggio paid the bill.

After Maggio had paid $497,067 to correct the defective work, the School, which was named as an additional insured on the insurance policy issued by Emcasco, executed a written assignment transferring and assigning to Maggio any causes of action the School may have had against Emcasco. The assignment, which was executed on October 18, 1995, authorized Maggio to sue Emcasco to recover the $497,067 spent on corrective work.

On October 30, 1995, Maggio filed a two-count complaint. Count I named Willis as a defendant, and count II named Willis, Emcasco, and Tennant as defendants. On February 22, 1996, the trial court dismissed count II of Maggio's original complaint against Tennant pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 1996)) without prejudice. On March 21, 1996, Maggio filed a two-count amended complaint. Count I named Willis as a defendant, and count II named Willis, Tennant, and Emcasco as defendants. On May 28, 1996, the trial court dismissed count II of Maggio's amended complaint against Tennant pursuant to section 2-615 without prejudice.

On June 25, 1996, Maggio filed its second amended complaint. The complaint contained four counts, which were: (1) breach of contract against Willis; (2) third-party breach of contract against Emcasco; (3) assignment of cause of action against Emcasco; and (4) subrogation of cause of action against Emcasco. On July 15, 1996, Emcasco filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615 and section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On August 22, 1996, the trial court granted Emcasco's motion to dismiss count II without prejudice. On September 11, 1996, Emcasco filed a separate motion to dismiss counts III and IV of the second amended complaint pursuant to section 2-615. On October 10, 1996, the trial court granted Emcasco's motion to dismiss counts III and IV.

On April 27, 1999, the trial court granted Maggio's motion to file an amended count II to its second amended complaint. On May 10, 1999, Maggio filed its amended count II. On May 27, 1999, Emcasco filed a motion to vacate the order allowing Maggio to file an amended count II. On August 20, 1999, the trial court vacated the order of April 27, 1999, which allowed Maggio to file an amended count II. On August 27, 1999, the trial court denied Maggio leave to file an amended count II and found that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of that order or the order of October 10, 1996, dismissing counts III and

IV. Maggio appeals.

We affirm in part and reverse ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.