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.

The Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.

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

April 13, 2018

THE WINDRIDGE OF NAPERVILLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          GARY FEINERMAN JUDGE

         The Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association brought this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, alleging that its insurance policy with Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“PIIC”) entitled it to an independent appraisal to value storm damage to its condominium building in Naperville, Illinois. Doc. 19. (There actually are several damaged buildings, but for simplicity the court will pretend there is just one.) Windridge moved to compel an appraisal. Doc. 25. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, requiring PIIC to proceed to appraisal as to the damage indisputably covered by the policy, but not as to the claimed damage over which there was a genuine coverage dispute. Docs. 47-48 (reported at 2017 WL 372308 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2017)).

         The parties proceeded to litigate that coverage dispute, which concerns the extent of PIIC's obligation to replace the building's aluminum siding. Docs. 51, 53. The storm physically damaged the siding on the building's south and west elevations, but not on the north and east elevations. PIIC says that the policy requires it pay to replace the siding only on the south and west elevations. Windridge says that because replacement siding that matches the undamaged north and east elevations is no longer available, PIIC must pay to replace the siding on all four elevations to ensure that all four elevations match. Windridge moves for partial summary judgment on that coverage issue. Doc. 67. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         Background

         The following facts are stated as favorably to PIIC, the non-movant, as permitted by the record and Local Rule 56.1. See Woods v. City of Berwyn, 803 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 2015). In considering Windridge's motion, the court must assume the truth of those facts, but does not vouch for them. See Arroyo v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., 805 F.3d 278, 281 (7th Cir. 2015).

         PICC issued an insurance policy to Windridge covering damage to its building. Doc. 74 at ¶¶ 1, 5-6. The policy's “[c]overage” provision states that PIIC must “pay for direct physical ‘loss' to Covered Property caused by or resulting from any of the Covered Causes of Loss.” Id. at ¶ 10. Here, in pertinent part, is the policy's loss valuation provision:

7. Valuation
We will determine the value of Covered Property in the event of “loss” as follows:
a. At replacement cost (without deduction for depreciation) as of the time of “loss” …
(1) We will not pay more for “loss” on a replacement cost basis than the least of:
(a) The Limit of Insurance applicable to the lost or damaged property;
(b) The cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property:
(i) Of comparable material and quality; and
(ii) Used for the same purpose; ...

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.