United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by David
F. Cutter, Troutman Sanders LLP & William P. Pipal, Troutman
Chicago Transit Authority, Defendant, represented by Douglas
A. Henning, Chicago Transit Authority.
Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Suber,
Daniel G. Suber & Associates.
Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen
Suber, Daniel G. Suber & Associates.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. GETTLEMAN, District Judge.
Insurance Company ("Nautilus"), filed a four-count
complaint against defendants GSG Consultants, Inc.
("GSG"),  Chicago Transit Authority
("CTA"), STV Incorporated ("STV"), Colony
Insurance Company ("Colony"), and Gonzalo Gonzalez
("Gonzalez"),  seeking a declaratory judgment that
it has no duty to defend or indemnify CTA and STV against
Gonzalez's lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, entitled Gonzalez v. Riley Construction
Company, Inc., et al., NO. 11-L-3204 ("Gonzalez
Action"). Count I seeks a declaration that
Nautilus has no duty to defend or indemnify CTA or STV in the
Gonzalez Action because they do not qualify as additional
insureds under the Nautilus policy. Count II seeks a
declaration that CTA does not qualify as an additional
insured because there is no written contract or agreement
between GSG and CTA agreeing to name CTA as an additional
insured. Count III seeks a declaration that Nautilus has no
duty to defend or indemnify CTA or STV because of the
Nautilus policy's "professional services"
exclusion. Count III also seeks a declaration that Nautilus
owes STV no duty to defend or indemnify because no suit has
been filed against STV. Count IV seeks a declaration that CTA
and STV are not entitled to coverage under an excess policy.
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). CTA and STV are the only parties
contesting the motion. For the reasons discussed below, the
court grants Nautilus's motion for judgment on the
December 30, 2007, CTA hired STV (under the "Prime
Agreement") to manage the construction at CTA's
Oakton Street train station (the "worksite"). The
Prime Agreement requires STV to indemnify CTA for damages
caused by STV or its subcontractors' negligent acts or
omissions. On February 4, 2008, STV and GSG entered into a
master subcontract for professional services (the "GSG
Agreement"), which required GSG to "indemnify,
defend, and hold harmless STV [and CTA]... from and against
all claims, damages, losses, and expenses... arising out of,
relating to or resulting from the performance of this
Agreement." Nautilus insured GSG pursuant to annual
commercial general liability insurance policies and excess
policies since 2010. GSG's Nautilus policy contains an
"Additional Insured - Blanket" endorsement, which
Section III - Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an
insured, with respect to Coverage A, B, and D, any person(s)
or organization(s) when you and such person(s) or
organization(s) have agreed in a written contract or written
agreement that such person(s) or organization(s) be added as
an additional insured on your policy. Such written contract
or written agreement must be in effect prior to the
performance of your work which is the subject of such written
contract or written agreement.
March 8, 2011, Gonzalez, another sub-contractor's
employee, was seriously injured in a construction accident at
the worksite. CTA and STV assert in the instant case that GSG
was supervising the worksite pursuant to the GSG Agreement
when the accident occurred. On March 25, 2011, Gonzalez filed
the Gonzalez Action against five parties, including CTA, but
not GSG or STV.
STV, through Colony, tendered their defense to Nautilus on
June 9, 2014. Colony is STV's commercial general
liability insurer, and has "been defending CTA and STV
in [the Gonzalez Action]." Nautilus eventually denied
coverage for CTA and STV on September 8, 2014. Nautilus
subsequently filed the instant declaratory judgment complaint
against GSG, CTA, STV, Colony, and Gonzalez. Jurisdiction is
properly based on diversity of citizenship.