Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.


March 18, 2004.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM HART, Senior District Judge


This case involves a dispute over insurance coverage for expenses related to a Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") investigation which concluded with the entry of an agreed cease-and-desist order with affirmative action provisions. Plaintiff Minuteman International, Inc. was investigated by the SEC and subsequently entered into an agreement with the SEC to undertake certain corrective action. Defendant Great American Insurance Company declined to pay any "Costs of Defense" or possible "Loss" on the ground that the SEC investigation was not a "Claim" as that term is used in the parties' insurance policy. Presently pending is Great American's motion to dismiss. Page 2

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in plaintiff's favor. Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164 (1993); Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 486 (7th Cir. 2002); Stachon v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 229 F.3d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 2000). A complaint need not set forth all relevant facts or recite the law; all that is required is a short and plain statement showing that the party is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d 1000, 1008 (7th Cir. 2002); Anderson v. Simon, 217 F.3d 472, 474 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1073 (2001); Scott v. City of Chicago, 195 F.3d 950, 951 (7th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs in a suit in federal court need not plead facts; conclusions may be pleaded as long as the defendant has at least minimal notice of the claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002); Scott, 195 F.3d at 951; Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 122 F.3d 417, 419 (7th Cir. 1997); Jackson v. Marion County, 66 F.3d 151, 153-54 (7th Cir. 1995). In the complaint itself, it is unnecessary to specifically identify the legal basis for a claim as long as the facts alleged would support relief. Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2000); Scott, Page 3 195 F.3d at 951; Albiero, 122 F.3d at 419; Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1992). However, in response to a motion to dismiss that raises the issue, the plaintiff must identify the legal basis for a claim and make adequate legal arguments in support of it. Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (7th Cir. 1999); Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., 51 F.3d 1329, 1335 (7th Cir. 1995); Levin v. Childers, 101 F.3d 44, 46 (6th Cir. 1996); Carpenter v. City of Northlake, 948 F. Supp. 759, 765 (N.D. Ill. 1996). As long as they are consistent with the allegations of the complaint, a plaintiff may assert additional facts in his or her response to a motion to dismiss. Brokaw v. Mercer County, 235 F.3d 1000, 1006 (7th Cir. 2000); Forseth, 199 F.3d at 368; Albiero, 122 F.3d at 419; Gutierrez v. Peters, Ill F.3d 1364, 1367 n.2 (7th Cir. 1997). Also, documents that are referred to in the complaint and that are central to a claim that is made may be considered even if not attached to the complaint. Duferco. Steel Inc. v. M/V Kalisti, 121 F.3d 321, 324 n.3 (7th Cir. 1997); Venture Associates Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir. 1993); Hebein ex rel. Berman v. Young, 37 F. Supp.2d 1035, 1038-39 (N.D. Ill. 1998). This may include the full text of an SEC filing or document that is integral to the complaint. See Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 360-61 (6th Cir. 2001); Ehlert v. Singer, 245 F.3d 1313, 1316 n.4 Page 4 (11th Cir. 2001); San Leandro Emergency Medical Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos., 75 F.3d 801, 808-09 (2d Cir. 1996); Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., 2002 WL 1160171 *2 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2002); In re Newell Rubbermaid Inc. Securities Litigation, 2000 WL 1705279 *3 n.2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2000).

  The following facts are taken to be true for purposes of ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss. For the pertinent time period, plaintiff had a "claims made" directors and officers liability policy with defendant (the "Policy"). On November 13, 2001, the SEC issued an order entitled "Order Directing a Private Investigation and Designating Officers to Take Testimony" (the "2001 Order"). The 2001 Order stated that SEC staff had reported information indicating that, in connection with securities transactions, Minuteman officers and others may have made false or misleading statements, failed to keep accurate records and accounts, and failed to implement and maintain a system of internal accounting controls. The 2001 Order directs that a private investigation be undertaken as to these matters and the Order empowers specified individuals to administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena witnesses, etc., in order to conduct this investigation.

  A subpoena dated November 21, 2001 was served on plaintiff and certain of its officers and employees requiring appearances for depositions and the production of specified Page 5 categories of documents. On January 22, 2002, written notice of the investigation and subpoena was provided to defendant. Plaintiff expended in excess of $57,000 complying with the document production aspect of the subpoena. Additional subpoenas requiring more depositions and document production were also issued. Deponents retained counsel and defendant reimbursed the deponents for their legals fees, which was an amount in excess of $418,000. Plaintiff contends these two expenses qualify as "Costs of Defense" under the Policy.

  On May 31, 2003, the SEC entered a cease-and-desist order making findings and imposing "undertakings" under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. This order was based on the acceptance of plaintiff's offer to settle the matter without admitting or denying the findings contained in the cease-and-desist order. The findings included that certain earnings were misstated. Plaintiff and certain officers were ordered to cease and desist from engaging in securities law violations. Plaintiff was also required to: (1) employ, for five years, a Chief Accounting Officer who would be responsible for reviewing filings with the SEC and be responsible for all financial reporting; (2) implement written internal procedures to ensure quarterly sales were recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and (3) retain an additional auditing firm to conduct quarterly audits and review internal controls. It is alleged Page 6 that the Chief Accounting Officer and additional auditor will cost an estimated $420,000 or more. Plaintiff contends this expense is a "Loss" from a "Settlement" under the terms of the Policy.

  In response to plaintiff's January 22, 2002 notice, defendant stated that it was proceeding under a reservation of rights. Plaintiff continued to keep defendant advised of the SEC proceedings and continued to maintain that the proceedings constituted a Claim under the Policy. Defendant took the position that it was not a Claim and eventually denied plaintiff's request for reimbursement.

  In its motion to dismiss, defendant contends no aspect of the SEC proceedings constitutes a "Claim" as that term is used in the Policy. Even if the Claim requirement is satisfied, defendant contends neither the cost of the Chief Accounting Officer nor the cost of the additional auditor qualifies as a "Loss" as that term is used in the Policy. Defendant does not presently dispute that the other expenses would qualify as Costs of Defense if the SEC proceedings constitute a Claim.

  Section III of the Policy is entitled "Definitions."*fn1 It includes the following two definitions: Page 7

  A. "Claim" shall mean:
(1) a written demand for monetary or non-monetary relief made against any Insured . . .; or
(2) a civil, criminal, administrative or arbitration proceeding made against any Insured seeking monetary or non-monetary relief and commenced by the service of a complaint or similar pleading, the return of an indictment, or the receipt or filing of notice of charges or similar document, including any proceeding initiated against any Insured before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any similar governmental body.
* * *
P. "Securities Claim" shall mean any Claim (including a civil lawsuit or criminal proceeding brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission) made against an Insured alleging a violation of any law, regulation or rule, whether statutory or common law, which is:
(1) brought by any person or entity alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributed to, in part or in whole, the: (a) purchase or sale, or (b) offer or solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell, any securities of the Company, or. . . .
  A definition for "Loss" is set forth in § III.L. of the Policy, but the definition in the body of the Policy is superseded by one or more definitions contained in two endorsements. The "Illinois Amendatory Endorsement," which is labeled "Endorsement 1," provides in part:
In compliance with the insurance regulations of the state of Illinois, the following provisions are hereby added to the Policy. In the event that a similar provision is already contained in the Policy, the provisions of this endorsement shall take precedence over such similar provision.
  * * * Page 8
8. It is understood and agreed that Section III.L. of the Policy is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Section III.L. "Loss" shall mean compensatory damages, punitive or exemplary damages, the multiple portion of any multiplied damage award (in Illinois only vicariously assessed punitive damages are insurable), settlements and Costs of Defense, provided, however, Loss shall not include criminal or civil fines or penalties imposed by law, taxes, or any matter which may be deemed uninsurable under the law pursuant to which this Policy shall be construed. It is understood and agreed that the enforceability of the foregoing coverage shall be governed by such applicable law which most favors coverage for punitive or exemplary damages or the multiple portion of any multiplied damage award. Loss shall also not include any portion of damages, judgments or settlements arising out of any Claim alleging that the Company paid an inadequate price or consideration for the purchase of the Company's securities.
The only language difference between the definition of Loss contained in the endorsement and the definition contained in the body of the Policy is the addition of the parenthetical language regarding vicariously assessed punitive damages.
  There is another endorsement entitled "Insured Entity Coverage." This endorsement is labeled as "Endorsement 2" and states in part:
2. Section III.L. of the Policy is amended by the addition of the following:
Loss, other than Costs of Defense, shall also not include:
  (1) any obligation of the Insured Entity pursuant to any federal, state or local statutory Page 9 law governing employment or benefits including but not limited to . . .;
(2) any obligation of the Insured Entity as a result of a Claim seeking relief or redress in any form other than money damages, including but not limited to any obligation of the Insured Entity to modify any building or property; or
(3) any obligation of the Insured Entity to pay salary, wages or other employment-related benefits to any employee under an express or implied contract;
  The parties dispute the meaning of the term "Claim," as used in ...

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.