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.

Nautilus Insurance Co. v. Chicago Transit Authority

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 30, 2016

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, STV INCORPORATED, COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY and GONZALO GONZALEZ, Defendants.

          Nautilus Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by David F. Cutter, Troutman Sanders LLP & William P. Pipal, Troutman Sanders Llp.

          Chicago Transit Authority, Defendant, represented by Douglas A. Henning, Chicago Transit Authority.

          STV Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Suber, Daniel G. Suber & Associates.

          Colony Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Suber, Daniel G. Suber & Associates.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT W. GETTLEMAN, District Judge.

         Nautilus Insurance Company ("Nautilus"), filed a four-count complaint against defendants GSG Consultants, Inc. ("GSG"), [1] Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA"), STV Incorporated ("STV"), Colony Insurance Company ("Colony"), and Gonzalo Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), [2] 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").[3] 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.

         Nautilus 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 pleadings.

         BACKGROUND

         On 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 provides that:

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.

         On 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.

         CTA and 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.

         DISCUSSION[4]

         I. ...


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.