Public Service Mutual Insurance Company v. Capitol Transamerica Corporation

Filing 53

MOTION by Plaintiff Public Service Mutual Insurance Company for judgment in the Amt of $71,744.11 on Count I of the Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2)(Fishman, Howard)

Public Service Mutual Insurance Company v. Capitol Transamerica Corporation

Doc. 53 Att. 1

Exhibit 1

¡

l

Dockets.Justia.com

0n1'...(01I2l)Case: 1:09-cv-02829 Document#: 50 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 1 of1 PageID#:742

~.

United States District Court, Northern District of Illnois
"

Name of Asigned Judge

or Matrte Judge
. CASE NUER

John F. Gry
09C2829

Slitii Judg lfOOer
thll Asgned Jiid3C

DATE

~oveniber 17, 2010

.'

TI
CASE

Public Servce Mut In. Co v. Capitol Traerica Corp.

. DOCKT J¡NTRY TE .
Defendant's motion for paral suiar judgment (32) on Count I of

cross-motion for paal suiar judgment (36) on Count I of its complait is grte in pa. and denied in
par The cour finds and deares as follows: (1) Capitol and PSM provide co-priar ince coverg the
clais asserted agait Kenad in the Underlyi Lawst; (2) both Capitol and PSM have a duty to defend

its counterclai is denied. Plaitis

~OO~. '
PSM's offer of its policy limts does not relieve its duty to defend

Kena in the Underlyig Lawsuit; (3) Capitol and PSM mus sh the cost of Kenard's defense 50/50, includig fee and cost th PSM has aleady expended defendig Kena in the Underlyig Lawsuit; and (4)

Kenar. ENR:MMORAUM..

A st hearg is set for ~ovembe~) 201 0 at 11:00 a.m.

_X_ ( For fuer detals atthed doument.)
. .; .'/:,:;. ....;~¿~\~:~.: : .':\:.:.
..~ .
.~ ~ ;. . .

Dockg to mall notce.
. '.". . ~";'.,.

" .. '..

. ..')Si~r:,~' .' ....

-.:.::-

.....~~; .'::" .".:'

. ". .":'.;,::'fi.if~:t\., :::~

Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11í17/10 Page 1 of 15 PagelD #:743

.09-2829.101-!lX

November 17, 2010

IN TH UNTED STATES DJ:STRICT COURT

FOR 'r NORTH DISTRJ:CT OF ILLINOIS
EA'lERN D:iISION

PUBLIC SERVICE: MU INS., CO.,

KE MGMT. co.,
v.

individually and as subrogee of

) ) )

Plaintiff,
CAPITOL TRASAMRlCA CORP.,
. d/b/a CAITAL INORM. CORP.,

) )
)

) ) ) )
)

No. 09 C 2829

Defendant.

)

MEORAUM opimON
Before the court are the parties' oross-motions for summry

judgment.

For the reasons explained below we grant plaintiff

Pulic Service Mutual Insurance Company's ("PSM") motion in part,

and deny it in part, and deny defendant Capitol Transamerica

Corporation's ( "Cap! tol n) motion.
BACKGROUN

This insurance coverage dispute arises from a wrongful death
action filed against the parties' mutual insured, Kenard Management

Corporation ("Renard"). (Def. ' s Stmt. of Material Facts in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ.. J. (hereinafter "Def.' s Stmt. n) , 16.)
On January 1, 2007 Michael Doyle fell to his death from the porch

of the third-floor apartment located at 3180 North Clark Street,
Chicago, Illinois. (Id. at 1 17.) Mr. Doyle's estate alieges that

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 2 of 15 PagelD #:744

-2-

Kenard - the building maager - negligently failed to install
building-code compliant guardrails on the porch that would have

prevented his death. (Royle v. ¡(enard Corp., No. 07 L 1988
'(compI.), attached as Ex. C to Def.' s Stmt., at 2, 4-5 (the
"Underlying LawsuitU).) Kenard managed'the property at that time

pursuant to a Management Agreement with the property's owner,

Belmont Clark Partners ("Bcpn). (Def. l s Stmt. , 6 i see al so Mgmt.
Agmt., dated April 17, 2006, attached as Ex. D to Def.'s Stmt.)

The Management Agreement contains a "Save Harmeasn provision
requiring BCP to purchase an insurance policy naming BCP and Kenard

as "co- insureds. n (Mgmt. Agmt. , 10.) The relationship between
this provision and PSM's policy, which names Kenard and "Co:rs Bank

#14111 as insureds, is not entirely clear. Neither party explains
who or what '\Corus Bank #14111 is, or what it has to do with BCP.

Regardless, it is undisputed that PSM's policy was in place when

Mr. Doyle died and that the policy covers Renard's liability for
"bodily injury" at the 3180 North Clark Street premises. At that

time Renard was also covered by two insurance policies issued by

Capitol: a Commercial General Liability Coverage policy and a

Commercial Umbrella General Liability Coverage policy. (Def. ' s
Stmt. ~~ 11, 15.) These policies likewise cover ,Renard's liability

for "bodily inj uryN at the Clark Street premises. (Def. ' s Resp. to Pl. ' s Stmt. of Add' 1 Material Facts " 2 -3. )

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 3 of 15 PagelD #:745

-3-

Capitol was notified on January 111 2007 of a potential claim
against Kanard stemmng from Mr. Doyle

1 s death.

(De

f.. 1 S Stmt. ,

20; Fax from S. McMaster to Capitol Indem'l dated Jan. 111 20071
attached as Ex. H to Def. 1 s Stmt., at 1.) Capitol acknowledged the

notice in a letter to Kenard dated January 16, 2007. (Def.'s Stmt.

,¡ 21; Letter from R. Miller to Kenard, dated Jan. 16, 2007,
attached as Ex. H to Def.' s Stmt., at 4.) Capitol retained a firm

to investigate the potential claim, arid retained a lawyer co
represent- Kenard after Mr. Doyle's estate filed the Underlying
Lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on February
221 2007.
(Id. at ~, 22-23.)

The attorney Capitol retained to

defend Kenard soon learned that another law firm - retained by PSM

- had entered an appearance on Kanard's behalf.

(Id. at '¡'i 23,

25. )

It appears that Kenard initially failed to respond to

Capitol' sreguest8 for information about the claim.

(See Letter

from H. Russo to R. Milleri dated Mar. 5, 2007, attached as Ex. H

to Def.' s Stmt.; Fax from H. Russo to K. Wenkus, dated April 4,
2007, attached as Ex. H to Def. 1 s Stmt.; Letter from H. RUBBO to R.

Miller, dated April 261 2007, attached as Ex. H to DeL's ,Stmt.)1
Then, in a letter dated July 2, 2007, Kenard's president Geraldine Liohtermn informed Capitol's investigator that: (1) the Management
¡',

Agreement required the building owner to obtain insurance
Y PSM denies that Kenard was unresponsive, (~Pl.'a Reap. to Def,'s
Stmt. '1 24), but does not 01 te any evidence to the contrary.

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 4 of 15 PagelD #:746

~4protecting Kenard; (2) a policy "was put into effect" with PSM
during the relevant period; and (3) PSM had selected an attorney
Uta defend (Kenard'sl interests" in the Underlying Lawsuit. (See

Letter from G.. Lichtermn to H. Russo, dated July 2, 2007, attached
as Ex. H to Def.' s Stmt.) Ms. Lichterman went on to state her
"understanding/ of the relationship between the PSM and Capitol

policies:
It is my understanding that (Capitol's primary and
umbrella policies) are excess over any other insurance we may have. We are assuming the Policy with Public Service Mutual Insurance Company is primary insurance.

(rd. )

In November 2007 - approximately four months after Ms.

Lichtermån's letter - PSM first demanded that Capitol contribute to

the cost of Kenard's defense. (PI.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts ~ 12.)
The record does not indicate what

i if anything, came of PSM's

initial demand. Then, in a series of letters in early 2009, PSM
renewed its demand that Capitol contribute to Kenard's defense.

(rd. at , 15.) Kenard, in a letter dated May 11, 2009, likewise
demaded that Capitol acknowledge its duty to defend Kenard. (See
Letter from G. Collins to J. MCCarthy, dated May 11, 2009, attached
as Ex. 6 to Pl. 's Resp. ("Your Company has a fiduciai: duty to its

policyholder to defend the case and not to put ita own interest
ahead of that of the policyholder.") .)

This flurry of activity was evidently sparked by the
plaintiff' a offer to settle the Underlying Lawsuit in exchange for

$3 million - the combined policy limits of the three policies at

.'

Case: 1:09-cv~02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 5 of 15 PagelD #:747

-5-

issue. (Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts' 19.) PSM has indicated its
willingness to offer its policy limits, Capitol has not. (rd. at

'r1f 20-21.)

Both parties have requested declaratory judgment

concerning the parties' defense and indemnity obligations. (~
CampI. (Count I); Counterclaim (Count I) .) In their cross-motions

for partial summary judgment the parties dispute only whether
Capitol has a duty to defend Kenard in the Underlying Lawsuit. a

DISCUSSION

A.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment "should he rendered if the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56 (c) . In considering such a motion, the court construes the
evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Pitasi v.

Gartner Group. Inc., 184 F.3d 709, 714 (7th Cir. 1999). "Summary

judgment should be denied if the dispute is 'genuine': 'if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party.,n Talanda v. KPC Nat'! Mgmt. Co., 140 F.3d

1090, 1095 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby.
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

The court will enter sumry

~l As Capitol points out, the parties have not settled the Underlying Lawsuit and the court has not entered judgment. However, our discussion of the policies' relative priority is certainly relevant to the ultimate question of

indenmfication. ~ infra Part c.

Case: 1:09-cv-02829 Document#: 51 Filed: 11/17110 Page 6 of15 PageID#:748

~6judgent against a party who does not "come forward with evidence
that would reasonably permit the finder of fact to find in (itsJ
favor on a material question." McGrath v. Gillis, 44 F. 3d 567, 569
(7th Cir. 1995).

B. Targeted Tender
Capitol contends that Kenard tendered its defense to PSM
exclusively. When an insured has coverage under multiple insurance

policies, it may choose a single insurer to defen and indemnify it

and forego coverage under its other policies.

John Burns

Construction Co. v. Indiana Ins. Co., 727 N.E.2d 211, 215 (Ill.
2000).3 When an insured has made such an election, the "targeted"

insurer may not demand contribution from those insurers whose
coverage the insured has elected to forgo. rd. at 216-17. This
rule protects the insured's "paramount right
'to seek or not

to seek an insurer's. participation in a claim as the insured
chooses.'# Alcan United. Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Ins. Co., 707

N .E. 2d 687, 692 (IlL. App. 1999) (quoting Institute of London
Underwriters y. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 234 N.E.2d 1311, 1316 (Ill.

App. . 1992) ). As a corollary to this rule, an insured may later

"deactivate coverage with a carrier previously selected for
puroses of invoking exclusive coverage with another carrier." rd.
at 568.

Y Capitol and PSM, Wisconsin and New York corporations respectively,
agree that their dispute is governed by Illinois law.

-

Mi.,H:'i:i'

...

Case: 1:09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17110 Page 7 of 15 PagelD #:749

-7-

Capi tal's duty to defend Kenard was triggered when it recei. ved
actual notice of the suit in February 2007. See Cincinnati Co. v.

West American Ins. Co., 701 N.E.2d 499, 505 (Ill. 1998).4
Consistent with its obligations, Capitol retained an investigator and defense counsel and attempted to contact Kenard. The question

is whether, after Capitol's duty to defend was triggered, Kenard
"deactivated" Capitol's policy in favor of exclusive coverage under

PSW s policy. In John Burs the insured explicitly indicated that
it looked "solely" to one insurer for defense and indemnification,

and told its other insurer that it did not want it "to become
By contrast, it is clear from Ms. Lichterman's letter that she was
only exressing her understanding of the relationship between the

involved in the sui t . II

John Burns, 727 N.E.2d at 914.

various policies. Ms. Lichterman is not an attorney, (Af f. of G.

Lichterm, attached as Ex. 3 to Def.' s Mem., , 1), and there is no
evidence that she has a background in the insurance. industry. See
Cincinnati Co., 701 N.E.2d at 504-05 (recognizing that insurers are

usually more versed in insurance law than even sophisticated
insureds) . Indeed, she states in her affidavit that she .had not

read any of the policies at issue before drafting the letter,
(Aff. of G. Lichterman, attached as Ex. 3 to Def. i a Mem.) Based
upon her layperson's understanding of Kenard' s insurance coverage

~l Insofar as Capitol argues that Kenard was required to "'tender" the
lawsuit to Capitol for defense and indenmification, (Def.' s Mem. at 9), that is not the law in Illinois. See Cincinnati Co., 701 N.E.2d at 505 (considering and explicitly rejecting that requirement).

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17110 Page 8 of 15 PagelD #:750

-a-

Ms. Lichterman concluded that PSW s policy was primary.

This

cannot fairly be described as a "knwing choice" to forgo coverage
under Capitol L s policy.

Alcan, 707 N.E.2d at 694.

Ms.

Lichte:ian's letter may have been equivocalL especially in light of

Kenard's early unresponsiveness. But the onus was on Capitol to

seek clarification.

Cincinnati Co., 701 N.E.2d at 505 (citing

Towne Realty. Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 548 N.W.2d 64, 67 (Wis.
1996) ). We conclude that Kenard did not select PSM exclusively for

defense and indemnification.
c. Whether CapitolL s Genenl Liability Policy is Excess to PSM' as

In the alternative, Capitol argues that Ms. Lichterm was
correct and that it did not have a duty to defend Kenard because

its general liability policy is excess to PSM's. Under Illinois
law the primary insurer, not the excess insurer, has the duty to

defend the insured.

See Royal Ins. Co. v. Process Design

Associates, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 1234, 1245 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).
"fEJxcess coverage may arise 'by coincidence' in situations where

multiple primary insurance contracts apply to the same loss for

occurrenceJ .

In these instances, courts examine the \ other

insurance' clauses contained in each of the policies to determne
which is primary and which is excess." Roberts v. Northland Ins.

f¡ In its complaint, PSM requests a declaration that its policy is excess to Capitol's. (CompI. Count II (Cl 4).) In ita cross-motion for sunuary. judgment it argues instead that the two policies are "co-primary.H And the parties appear

to agree that Capitol's umrella policy is excess. The sole question, then, is
liability policy is excess to PSWs, as Capitol argues, or whether the two policies are co-primary. whether Capitol's general

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 9 of 15 PagelD #:751

-9-

Co., 705 N.E.2d 762, 769 (Ill. 199B) (Freeman, C.J., concurring in

part and dissenting in part) (internal citation omitted). PSM's
"other insurance" provision states, in pertinent part:

If there is other insurance covering the same loss or damage, we will pay only for the amount of the covered loss or damage in excesà of the amount due from that other insurance, whether you can collect on it or not. But we will not pay more than the applicable Limit of

insurance.

(PSM General Liability Policy, attached as Ex. E to Def.'s Stmt.,

at 63.)

And here is the relevant portion of Capitol's "other

insurance" provision:
This insurance is excess over:

*

*

*

(2) Any other primary insurance available to you covering
liability for damages arising out of the premises or
operations, or the products and completed operations i for

which you have been added as an additional insured by attachment of an endorsement.

(Capitol General Liability Policy, attached as Ex. F to Def.'s
Stmt., at 51.) 6

Capitol's policy also contains a "Real Estate

Management Endorsement; n
! I

With respect to your liability arising out of your
maagement of property for which you are acting as real estate manager this insurance is excess over any other valid and collectible insurance available to you.

i
! i

(UL at 62.)
¡ , I i !

M Capitol's policy states tbat it is exoess in certain other
ciroumstancea, but only subsection (2) is evenly argab1y app1icable.

Case: 1:09~cv-02829 Document#: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 10 of 15 PagefD #:752

- 10 -

Capi tal's real estate management endorsement and PSM' 8 "other

insurance" clause both apply here. The endorsement applies because

th~ Underlying Lawsuit arises out of Kenard's maagement of the
apartment building where Mr. Doyle fell to his death. And PSM' s
~other insurance" clause applies because Capitol' e policy is "other

insurance covering the same loss or damage. II (,§ Def.' s Resp. to

pl. 's Stmt. of Ad' i Facts ~ 3.) But Capitol's "other insurance"

clause does not apply. Even assuming that BCP procured PSM' e
policy pursuant to its obligation under the Management Agreement,

cf. supra p. 2, Capitol's "other insurance" clause states that it
is excess to primary insurance "for which you have been added as an

additional insured by attachment of an endorsement. n An
"endorsement" is \\ (aJ n amendment to an insurance policy; a rider. /I

Black's Law Dictionary 607 (9th ed. 2009), As far as PSM's policy
discloses, Kenard is a "primary" not an "additional" insured, and

it was not added by attachment of an endorsement to an existing

policy. Id. at 879 (A "primary insured" is an "individual or
entity whose name appears first in the declarations of an insurance
policy,

II versus an "additional insured" who is "(aJ person covered

by an insurance policy but who is not the primary insured."); ~
also Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Oak Builders, Inc., 869 N.E.2d 992, 995

(IlL. App. Ct. 2007) ("If the words used in the policy, gi"\en their
plain and ordinary meaning, are unambiguous, they must be applied

as written. It) .

__Am

-

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 11 of 15 Pagel D #: 753

- J. Capitol insists that its endorsement trups PSM's "other
insurance" provision, relying heavily on Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v.

Everest Indem. Ins. Co., 861 N.E.2d 306 (Ill. App. 2006~. We must

discuss Hartforg in detail to explain why it does not support

Capitol i s position. In Hartford two insurance companies _ Hartford
Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford") and Everest Indemnity Insurance

Company ("Everest") - issued policies covering three defendants

sued in connection with a building fire. Id. at 307-08. It was
undisputed that those defendants, apparently the building's manager

and its owners i qualified as insureds under Hartford's policy. Mì
at 307. Everest's named insured provided security services
(including protection "against fire") pursuant to a contract with
the building

i s manager. rd. at 308. The manager and the owners

were named as additional insureds on Everest i s policy ~ but "only
'with respect to liability arising out of (the named insured's)
ongoing operations performed for Ithose additional) insured(sJ."

~ As Capitol points out, Hartford i s policy contained an "other
insurance" provision and a real estate property management
endorsement identical to Capitol/s in this case. rd. at 307-08.

And Everest i s policy, like PSM' a, contained its own "other

insurance" provision. rd. at 308. The additional insureds
tendered the underlying lawsuits to both Everest and Hartford for

defense and indemnification. .N at 309. Everest acknowledged its

obligation to defend one of the additional insureds (the opinion

Case: 1:09-cv-02829 Document#: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 12 of 15 PagelD #:754

- 12 -

does not explain why), but defended the other two additional
insureds under a reservation of rights. rd. Hartford later sought

a declaration that Everest had the primar duty to defend the

underlying lawsuits and that Hartford's policy was e:xcess to
Everest' s . Id. The trial court granted Hartford's motion for
summary judgment, and the appeals court affirmed. Id. at 310.
On appeal, Everest conceded that Hartford's pol icy was excess

to its own and that it (Everest) had the primary duty to defend the additional insureds for claims uarising out of" its named insured's

operations (so-called \\derivativeJl claims). Id. at 311, 312. This
concession

appears to have been based on language in Everest's

policy stating that it was "primary and noncontributory" when so

designated in a written agreement with another party (in that case,
the named insured's secuity agreement with the building manager) .

rd. at 308-09. But Everest argued that it had no duty whatsoever
to defend claims based on the additional insureds' own negligence

(UdirectJl claims), which were arguably beyond its policy's
coverage. .J at 309-11. The appeals court rejected that
argument, holding that Everest could not parse the underlying
lawsuit into "derivative" and "direct" claims, defending the former

but not the latter. See ~ at 310 (n (II f several theories of
recovery are alleged in the underlying complaint against the
insured" the insurer's duty to defend .arises even if only one of

the several theories is within the potential coverage of the

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #; 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 13 of 15 PagelD #:755

- 13 -

policy. n). That holding is irrelevant to our case, and there is
nothing in PSM's policy comparable to the provision of Everest f s
policy maing it "primary and noncontributory. "

Hartford is

inapposite.'
BothpSM's "other insuranceu clause and Capitol i s real estate
property management endorsement are "excess" clauses.

That is,

"they allow!) coverage only \over and above' other insurance."
Ohio Cas., 869 N.E.2d at 995 (quoting Putnam v. New Amsterdam Cas.

Co., 269 N.E.2d 97, 99 (IlL. 1970)). Where, as here, "two policies
contain the same sort of 'other insurance' clause, the clauses will

be deemed incompatible" and "cancel each other out. R rd. at 997
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) .8 The fact that,

in this case; one provision is labeled "other insuranceH and the
other is styled as an "endorsement" does not change the analysis.
Id. (concluding that two "excess" clauses were "mutuaiiy repugnant"

Y Capitol also cites several cases from other jurisdictions, only

pncrosistento with Illinois law. Seeprovision priority over another, it is u rted t give one "excess" infra. i on
!! Capitol insists that its endorsement is :redundant if it is read as another 'other insurance' clause." (Def.'S Mem. at 14.) But it reaches this conclusion by relying on labels and ignoring the actual language of these provisions. The endorsement applies in some circutances that Capitol's "other
"simply

one of which is arguably on point. See State Farm Fire &: Cas. Co. v. Amer. Eeen. Ins. Co., No. CIVA04CV02S87MSK-BN,2005 WL 521784 (D. Colo. Mar, 2, 2006). The State Farm court concluded that a real estate property management endorsement similar to Capitol's controlled Over the "other in6urance" .provision of a competing policy. State Farm is arguably distinguishable because the "other insuranceø clause in that case was triggered only by other "primary" insurance. rd. at *4. PSW s "other insurance" provision is triggered by any other insurance covering the same loss, and it is unisputed that Capitol's policy covers the loas here. (See Def,"s Resp. to Pl.'s Stmt. of Add'l Facts 11 3.) But insofar as the court

insurance" clause does not - this case being one exle - and vice versa. We

have not created any internal inconsistency by treating the endorsement as an "exaessQ insurance clause (which it plainly is) and comparing it with psw s own "excessR insui:ce clause.

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 14 of 15 PageJD #:756

- l4 -

even though they did not contain "identical verbiagell); accord
Peerless Ins. v. Vermont Mutual Ins. Co., 849 A.2d 100, 102 (N.H.
2004) (concluding that an "other insurance

ii provision and a real

estate property management endorsement were "mutually repugnant") .

Disregarding the "incompatible" provisions in this case, both
policies provide primary coverage for the Underlying Lawsuit, both
insurers have a duty to defend Kenard, and they must share the cost

of its defense.9 Ohio Cae.., 869 N.E:.2d at 997 (In cases where the
"other insurancell clauses cancel each other out, "the loss is pro-

rated between the policies."). PSM states that to date it has paid
S89, 816.12 in attorneys fees, citing a "Vendor Payment Listll that

lists only the name of the "vendor" (law firm) and the amounts

paid.

Capitol appropriately demands more information.

(Def. ' s

Resp. to Pl.' a Stmt. of Add'1 Facts , 18.) We hold today only that

Capitol must ahare the costs of Kenard's defense without exressing
an opinion at this point concerning the reasonableness of the fees

and costs PSM has incurred to date. 10
One final matter. In its cross-motion for summary judgment
PSM argued that it was free to stop defending Kenard because it had

clauses are incompatible. Peerless, 849 A.2d at 103 (collecting cases).
Cas., a6~ .N.El.2d at 997 (concluding without further analysis

2/ In a "smal-l'minority of juriSdictions" courts at:tempt to ran the competing policies according to other criteria when their "other insurance"

Applying that standard, Capitol' a reliance on the relative premiums of the two

policies might be relevant. But Illinois has not adopted that test. ~ Öhio
,that two accord with "mutually repugnt" other-insurance' clauses were co-primaz); policies

Peerless, 849 A.2d at 103.

defense, an Capitol has not suggested any other ratio.

~ PSM contends that Capitol is liable for 50% of the cost of Kenard's

..

Case: 1 :09-cv-02829 Document #: 51 Filed: 11/17/10 Page 15 of 15 PagelD #:757

- 15 -

offered its policy limits to settle the Underlying Lawsuit. (PI. t s
Mem. at 26.) In response Capitol cites Conway v. Country Cas. Ins.
Co., 442 N.E.2d 245, 247 (Ill. 1982), which held that an insurer is

not \\discharged from its duty to defend ita insured simply by the

payment of the policy limits.n Because PSM does not address Conway

or even mention its policy-limits arguent in its reply brief, we
conclude that PSM has waived that argument.
CONCLUSION

Defendant's motion for partial summry judgment (32) on Count

I of its counterclaim is denied.

Plaintiff' a cross-motion for

partial summary judgment (36) on Count I of its complaint is
granted in part, and denied in part. The court finds and declares

as follows;
1. Capitol and PSM provide co-primary insurance covering the claims asserted against Kenard in the Underlying Lawsuit.

2. Both Capitol and PSM have a duty to defend Kenard in the

Underlying Lawsuit.
3. Capi tal and PSM must share the cost of Kenard' s defense

50/50, including fees and costs that PSM has already
expended defending Xenard in the Underlying Lawsuit.

4. PSM's offer of its policy limits does not relieve its
duty to defend Kenard.

A status hearing is set for November 24i 2010 at 11:00 a.m.

DATE:

November 17, 2010

ENTER;

United States

Exhibit 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

)
PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INS., CO.,

Individually and as Subrogree of
KENARD MGMT, CO.,

) )
)

Plaintiff

) )
)

NO. 09 C 2829

v.
CAPITOL TRANSAMERICA CORP.,
d/b/a CAPITAL INDEM. CORP.,

) ) )

) )
) )

Defendant

. AFFIDAVIT OF SCOTT EDWARDS, REGIONAL CLAIMS MANAGER OF PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
. 'I, Scott Ediards, being over 18 years of age and having personal knowledge of all
matters contained

.....; I: ";..: herein, state as follows:

1) I am a Regional Claims Manager for Public Service Mutual Insurance

Company ("PSM~'). My primary offce is in Portland, Oregon.
2) I have been employed as a Claims Adjuster for more than twenty (20) years.

I am familiar with the fair and reasonable costs associated with the defense of liabilty
claims. I have extensive experience with liabilty

claims and with the payment .of fees and
i

costs associated with such claims.

!'

3) I am the Claims Supervisor responsible for the Doyle v, Kenard litigation. I
have

reviewed all of the bils and invoices associated with the defense of Kenard in the

Underlying Lawsuit (Doyle v. Kenard).

624981,1

.. .

~.

4) To date, PSM has incurred $143,488.23 in connection 'wlth the defense of

Kenard in the Underlying Lawsuit. Attched hereto as Exhibit A are fair and accurate copies
i

of all invoices and check which confirm payment of $143,488,23.

I.

f

5) Based upon my training, education and experience, the $143,488.23 in
defense costs and fees were fair, reasonable, necessry and appropriate under the
t
I ¡. ¡. ,

circumstnces.

t,

.':

¡t , i ! i

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I declare under penalties of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.

~~
Scott Edwards
...~.

i.
i i !

l. ¡, !

I.
i l.

¡

, i

i.
¡ i ;

2
624981.1

. .... .'....:........... ........ ,', .

EXHIBIT A

Public Service Mutuallnsurane Company

Summary of Legal Expenses - Kinard Management 18484 Inception to Date October, 2010
IService Provided
Law Firm
I (All)

Aronbérg Goldgehn
Eastern Claim Service Edward J De Rose Independent InSurance Service

Data Coveraae

.

Defense Mise
9,515,99
177.50 105.00 2,703.00

Kralovec & Marquad McCorkle Court Reporters McDonald & McCabe Mike Mobley Reporting
Nancy L Jones
Purcell

16,806.54
1,067.50

6,843,00
1,053.35 1.236.00

& Wardrope2 .
..56,662,26

108;981.34 0.00
1,800,00 2,715,00
56,662,26 142,146.87 10,857.35

Slòcinea.nd Walsh. .
Tux-i-c'uij . .,;........; ,..

Wiss, Jannev, Eistner Assoc.
Grand Total.' .

Total 9,515.99 177.50 105.00 2,703,00 16,806,54 1,067.50 6,843.00 1,053,35 1,236,00 108,981,34 56,662.26 1,800,00 2,715,00 209,666.48

i

,, 1

./

.
McDona'ld & lWcëabe

e
300. South Wacker Drie
. Chicago,ll60ß06,
Phone: [phone] Fax: 3121a45~5825

FEIN #36474073
'To: DennIs Rafael
Magna Cal1a Companies .

Date: 'Aptil2, 2001

. 303 West MadIso Strel, Sulle 1125 Chicgo. II. 6000

Rø:, Coyla v. Kenai'Maliagemønf
OIL: 01/01101

i=i;s
2.28.07 DÈ
DE
Telephone conflirerC6 With J. Batiori ta asilgnmèit.

RATE

HOURS

AMOUNT

Telephone confórøce with' o. Rafael rë ätlgnl1ent and
Itivèsllgation completed.

$150;0
$150.00

0-10
0;40

$16.00
$60;00,

DE

Télephone conference with InSUred ra iàWUft. energa~

motloh. to depose Angel Roman imd c:nditn of Pôrc
DE

$150.60

a.50
1,20

Exmine complaint, plaiiitlffstll'nergenty rnøllol',photOgtaphs
of

$75.00

DE Telephone conferiicè Wih ¡ilalniíffR altôl'ay 1' hlaemergency
mot/onto dep6e Mr. ROman.

poch and newspaperartclea and eosiderdefetise Issues

$150,00

$160.00

DE Prepail correspondença toplalnt1ffsaltorfeyre our
representation of ciefendani .

$150.00
$150.00_

0.20
Q.20

$30;0
$30.00

'. 2;27,07

DË
. DE

Preparation for ändatlertdanCé it; ë(urt to tèiipori to plalnlls
emergency motiOntOdeposè-W. Roirll'ti .
Telepliohé eofërenèe Wi

s!,bjec incldent andcoi'lUön ~f PCfl. ". .

MlìelRotín rolilsf(ítô.edge of

. $22S;ØO

':'.- :~:.:'.-~::.". , ~".' . ."

:.,\,:"..

.- .:..;';:~,~_:~::; ~j~:./:-.'

'. );\Y::~-~' ":. .:'.';-:" t.? ?:~::~~;:: . ,_::':~/:';' -'.

':',¡\);'..'- ~~~.~1~~~~~,;"t., " . i" ';,::,- . .' ,_:;;';;;;C):;;. " "i,
'. .': :~: -~~.::':r:,.. .,,"~- ", ,.,_./~~:;~,,:~_ ::.._:;~:~'. :':/.:,: .::. :~:.::~::.:/ ~ :,:,:,~/::~,.."...,:~.:.(,:~;;::::.'; ":: ~'-::~~ilft-;~ir¡ "", "';";/',: '~',~','.,.-;."..~..;, . :..; :,,:.,,_.~ " -......,.. .,~':;.~', - ,,:/~'j;,e.,.f.:

:...:.::.',....,.,. .

;,;.~;.,......:..: . , .' '._'~f..,: /~ :~.'. ::.:";",";.:-

:.';"":. "';"-'

,"."-.~'.",.: . - . : ./:.
. .:...:;:..::.... ::;;'::':;:. . "'-' ~.' ' :.::.; ;~\:) :/. :~.~::. !.""::" -'., ... :.~'.

-:.- ':":: (" .";::~::? ;;,¡,:".

",::..,. :.,:;~.::,~. - .
:,.,.:::~\:~\,/.:: .':,.:.:-'.. ;~':('.'::.':';"':"~" ,:;' ~:.':.';. ,'. ,:::'/i ,_',.", ,.~. .,.,~ ~ : Ü' ~", ~::.:,:; .~' ~".:,,:':.' /,;". :,. .. .;

i.':. , .§,~'.,;",.

~::.~~:~, ;.~. . ~'~J'., :", ..:::.~.:...'~;:'.~

_ú;.-:...:.;::,:~,'". . :-.'.: :, ;;:.:ti~:.r~U::" :'.' ';' '::;L~'::.':',.::.._:

.¡

I
.,
i
,.

. ..

e
exmine addiUn~t inveitgallòn n'atrlaiii recêlV rrO CIêl't.
Indudingi'pail fi I¡Wétglitor TórnReyolda and Gordon
Fr1mal' wllh Cit of Chlcáö SUØdfng' Coda vloiailoni and

e
$150.00 .
1.00'

DE

dlsposiÌons . . . DE

Telep/òne coerence wlt~ Insured to coitnn fact anéged In

$1IiO;o

cxrnplit In prepatatlc:i1 fòrpÆ¡)Srln9l1ntlr
OE
Cöntldør all&gatlot!lOr pIinOirli'eoplalnt and coi1aldéf

$150.00

0,20

$3,00
$40.00

defèriSls !hereo and prepal9 Answr ànd Afl'atlv Deenses
3.30.07
DE
Exn'ne caSe law re open

$150.00

.3.20

and ObviOUs conditns and modif
for

and supplenient llnswer andl1ffrmtl defenses and fòiwrd
same to ¡Muted aNd ëllØnt

.DE

Legal rèS8àrd'!' lâi1dlord and tènant' respee dutas re .

reviEl.. .

$150.00

1,30

$195.00

DE '
DE

demisd premlses,excePtOistodpen ari obvous
danger rule. andspeclri: i:aoo !t\lölvlngfahl1tm porch".
Begin draftng baCkground ll$dOi ò1 fnltlâl statu report to Client
ÈXmlne.dtaftantWlr lind atl..tîi;dëfnsea and consldör

$150.00

4.S0
1.50

'$65.00.
"

JFG

$150.00 $150.00

~225.00

øddftkins thereo. .
InclUding 6Ummarleaof IriEItlgatlon~ ..

0.50

$15.00

. 3.31.07

DE

Compiete drafting bàc:ground seon of-INital status report

De

. DE.

or:

lalw.. '. . . a ue .' v
completed

c:atjn to pedlnëht dÓcmentll; .
Draft seon

by investlgatoi ild/iinCÉ oùr involvment and
of IriltElI$talUsl'port oinlng pertnelit IllInois

$150.00
$150,00

2,60
2.00 2.40

$390.00

Dra secon o11niuai lilâtU$ rePort lIriIYllng liabilty and case

$300.0

$150.00

$3.00

TottdOue:

$150.Ô.Q

~uo $S.OriS.OO

II' io ß io 2711":02'i 30 q j ?qi: i;oi." à'llø~ j iaii.

~C='~~
. .':
)
.. ....'.. ~

. .t'ii

".

,

',' \

.. , ,.' ~" .. ¡. ..';,

. . .:;. a,';' ~.;::'. ~', . , , ' .. ,.' ,,:::.: ;!~,' ;,;\,:,.;;~f;':::~; :f.~ .~,~~'..;ij;,.::~ ;,,~j: : ,:

.\
,'. .,;

.'

pi;SGRP.:riON
".-';
. ~ :. .

ìli2si2òai j" :'. :ché'èK'NÙmlJer:", f 06 f021.:';;'::';;., ';::;'(;':~~f~lA:~l.¥:;¡:i;~::'/.;;'n;.;'. ':,;',: .' '.

5,055:00 .

;. ":" ..... .. ~~!1Jl~!i;~~~~l~rl~t!~irl:; ·
'.' ,; '.' .irisurêd:.'Kë"årdMa.nâgémêiit Cór'p 8"'Co¡:ús-:3¡úik~f~t~.,.

"

'. '. Páyeè:;' M¿b'onald 8. Mccâbl:ILLë: ,..:.:,¡;,'t;= ::~/': ';..'~;:;'" '.

..'I' . .CtalrMnt. MIchael DOYlê;..Eslate.of.. .......;.::.,..:.,..,.;'.'.,.. ::. ;..: ,¡. " .commfúi'ts;,:Paýlng leg'al feE!f~of:~itý')::~'s~'Ý:.:,:I;,(,,:.:.:,,:,:';ii":"
, I'

- . '. " ~\ \,' ~. ..... i~~d;i~r-i;,"\~.r;i:,
..

. ~ ,," .
:.l. .

.,'
....

'::\.'f '.~ (. ".

" :' .
. . ~ : . .~ .:' :

I., ,/ ;'1 '~:

.. 1.

.f

'EASTERN CLAI SERVICE, INC.
. Property & Casiíaltylnsurance jÚJjUSlèr.v

.

.
~':;,~

O.FlFAS'L
APR 242111

l.

P.O. eOX~8S. Isi.Ó1N, iLUNOiS 60'21 .630.941.0066
'17W480 b\)(Est. ADDISON. ILLINOIS 60101 +

630.91,.6

, 3821 Ii.STA Ta : UNI1 104 · ROCKlÇ)RO. IL 6 H OS ~ 6~0'94 i -0066
l~AX NUMBER (i30,941.0636

Apri i 7, 2007
,." MAGNA CARTACOMFANIES 303 WEST MADISON ST STE 1725
CHICAGO, IL60($06';3308 . ,

O.RAFAEL
APR 262007.

DENNIS RA AEL' 'SENIOR CLAIMS.REPRESENTATlVE

~.
Our FHe#: 07Ew030816

MICHAEL DOYLE . Client File #:

FIRST AN FINAL REPORt
ENCLOSURE:

L ChicagøJ'oIictR.epott,HN 100062. .
OFFICJAL INVESTIGATION:

.;;: ".;'; ~

~ r:

III .O(;Q ?8ltlii '1:0 2i:We¡:i 7111: ßo:i.i"2uio3ilia,li

r-~-~~ ..,'.'
'.
¡.

. ..;,.' '..

. ..... ..,,_....
. .:.

. . . ~.

oeSC~Ip.rio

4i1ii2òÔ1:l.Cfie~k'N.~~b~r: '''~fùa9i84': .::':..... ...' . :,..'"
.' Publ/o.Servóe.Mutuallnsurance Company.. .
pollty:.:'-:âW.,Ò18,134 " . ;.... . ,.,' :;

~_-..~~~-~";r -.~ , .; ..:
.¡ ..
. ~~..., '.'
.'.: .

:AMOUNt

960.00
",',,".,

'. . paym'êh(ryp~;is::':ËXpërÎse ,!.::. ',:. " .'- . ..,:.:,.,..;...
:. :

Ó¿0l.irrèncé:'.18484'. .' ¡-Claim: '1 .",'. '.
båte.~"(Lo$s:~:1iÔ1/2007 : '1.: . ,. , ......
.a'la!~~N:,;,¥lgh~'~i,,9.ö.y!~~"e~í~t.~..9,r ;. :',.' ;;,.:.if::¡~:.,,: ::" :':; :.:,~.i. ;.:: :. ',:;, ~:,:.;;.
l~sU.roe~;,;~~.n~r? ti~!l.ag~ni,en.~:C~p:.&:,COrlJ~ B~nk',~,!t1 :",. .'.;'

Payee: WISS, 'JanlleY, ,Elstnel'Assoclales' ,', ',' " . ,:.: ,,:'. \:, .-

commei-ts::;Cånsulting /Ëiigrriêf!lin'g'(éè 'iitérimbil¡; ~'..:;: .,:' .' '.:
. . . :~ ,;.::, :~: .:: 'i/::':': .~.: :,::: " . .... .:X' ;: '. ::. :,.( "\~,!~~~:¡~,,, :r?'::::;.,~*:::~, '. '. . /:.

. . , 'j. '. .

I

'. '. .,.~' .:'::~::':,.:";::'~,:~:. ',... ;:.'.,
~. '"

." I .. '.:.1.. ,.. ",
..

.b~AAFAeL

AtRJ 02001.
..,

t1Â~""""".'.'
./-,,:" k./(.~klJ... ..' ..........;n.. :.

. ~'"

_..... ~-

.-

EASTERN CLAIM SERVICE; INC.
Property & Casualty iI/suraiwe Adjusters

.

.
Tax # 36-3253262

OFFICES IN ADDJSON, IL. ELÚIN. IL' ROCKFORD, IL

.,+ ..
Plea.'oe

.'tELEPHONE! NUMBER 630-941-0066 (tX NUMBER 630.941.(636
renÚt

to: 17W480 LAKE ST

ADÒISON,lLLlNOIS 60101

Invoice#:, 1888
Date: 4117/2007
MAGNA CARTA

COMPANIES

303 WESTM,AISON 8T STE 1725 emCAGO; IL 60606,.3308

RECEIVED
APR.2 32007

. DENNS RAFAEL SËNIORCLAlMS REPRESENTATIVE

Our File #: 07EnM~ CLAIMS BRANCH

~~

MICHAL DOYLE
vS

;. CHent File #:

STATEMENT

Invëstigation Mileage

, Telephone

'. ~.~:-r~

Ill! lOb .~O 2(;11' -:0 2 ~ 3Da 3 r¡ai: ~O .111 211i03"3 ~811'

(~ /

\' ~ -m~-,~_~. ,.,)'" oeSCR~JION .
, ..

:.;. ; i' ': . ~ j -'0

'. '. "" ".' .: ;::.: ...!:'...

:.:~:~~.'.. .'~,: .: . ..~..:~.:, ~"..~:~'~ '~~f~(:~:.;;.': ~:; .~.~~~:. \ :~~..

. 4f2612Öò7'
"

'Chë¿i¿ 'Nùffbèf:.: '1061'i;i2å''-; ).;';;' ~,', .;. :~';:/:;,",:; :;;/e~i.:Jt. \;.~::';',;;';t '.:'"

. .---..=iF.""~~~ __._-~~~..~L.~~-J
.' '0, I

: :!':",

. . '0;-

"," '.177.50

:P.uiili'c:,S'i;N!ê~ Mtituå'I'lnsi.ra/Jc'e ci:mpaný":::~:~ ;;,:..::i~::;,.: ..: .
", "

l
....
....

0.;

.~~~Wii~iiIiHai~;~j,~C~,?'~l~~~:...
Irisuréd:~k4ria:rd 'ManageÆerí(êõrp :'p./ëò¡'c¡s 'i3åiík #1'41.'.... . !,' .
'Payee~:Ei3sier,; dà¡iTlSë(v'i~ê:rnc' ;....~.; .- . .. .:'"
L I i

Com~ents: Paýiñg'~ró¡".Pól(è'e:.Reporl. ',.: '. . .. . /, :',..

. . . . . .. ~.., r '0, - '. ~.: ,. . .:.., ~.. . ,'
. ':

.....

I

i i
I

. - ':-;:'

.'- .

~ .'. ':.' .': : ' , :. ,

.;. d .;,:;:";::::.~: .::!::.
.' . " . ,"

,. ..\ . ",

,.

"

"" :: . '.:: . ~ . ". .

..~~. ..' . . ..;; .

'.1:.

/,....

:.1.

, I .. "~; ,
'. ;.:.1' .... . - ',' ".... '...

RECEIVED
;;"'; ;':"-')'-,'. -'.

'.,.':..... .

\.~~...;....,

.;./.:..:.....

:/;;" .

::.;::.
':',:." ...

(:~':;; '\:::." ..,~ ".'::.;::::' ):.-. ,::

. :. J7\l4EîÔl.ake.Street.

Gas,etJiClalmServlc~.lhC
.",'- ,-: :.. .~ ..' .'.: :.... ',.:'

.:.,.f.....
~,,:

. ," ":".........;... ... .,.. .:. ..":,;..~..

Açd¡s()ni.:Çeqt01'

".:.,': ;....'.\:.~-(. ,.,..

:.':'P: :':::'.':.~:~.:'.,,' "

"'\,,,'::~~ .' '.
.::.:..:~~.;:\,:; .:' . .: .".~ ....... .;,....... ....f:'...:...J.

:;;. ;';. . :~'::;'.~".;:..:'.. ., ' ". .-: .... . '. ~..:
:/~,i~i~~ "\,:':.~~A..'.;r,.:,.:~,. :,::'::;~:/.:.'.L~'.: ':~':-:_:,,;;~,: ~-"';: .",.:i: ::: ."'.: :~~".: :::..',~.:.~~.:;"j,".,,~? ~::,~.~,/:':;:.:_.:. ..':. e : ::2.;;.:..:,~:.;~;:.:::;-".!,'::f::,,:,:, :,',\,:.:;:,~.~ ,:~..;.~~: ;;':;;;J2;~;:~',~;~~~...:.; .:~;;::;....j :~.¿:i,:.~;;

.,

e
McDonald &

e
McCabo

D.AAfAE
JUN 16 .10n1&
~ ,. .~.~.

225 W. Wacker Dnve

Suite 2100 Chicago,lL 60606
Phone: 312JS45~5190 Fax: 312f845~5825

\

FEIN # 36-4474073
TO: . OëMls Rälíel

Dat~: MayS. 2007

FINAL

BILL

Ma(Ja Carta Companies 303 West MadlsonSlr$t, Suite 1725
chicago, IL GO06

Flo:. Deyls v.l(onard Management
OIL: 01101/07

FEes
4.2.07
DE ËXtnine l'êUItS (lf jury verdict.

RATE

HOURS

AMOUNT

results recived frm Cook
$150.00

"Oouniy.JuryVerdlet Reporter.

0.50
1.60

$75.00
$240.00 $105.00
$45.00

ÖÈ Completë preparatin of eese value, liabilit and defense
sttegys:èton òf Inillal client status report, oe AddseçUqri to Initial report re Insurers preioss request to

$150,00 $150.00

instilefot tallÎngmodlßeaon and effect of same. oe Telephôneèorifetence with insure re control of porch and
ëhl'ng$S to anawr re same.

0.70 0.30 0.70

$150,00 $150,00

oe MOölfy äI1wor to reflec tenenfs Còntrol of porc and add
affrrtl1e defënse reliltervnlng cause.

$105.00

4.0.o
'. DE ElCmine affdavit torGeny Ucherman prepared by altomeyfor

KéMrd Corpration and telephone converstion with him ra

same. '
',.,'."
. . .'.4;g.Ø1 ..:'....-...

$150.00

0.40

$6.QO
'".' ....:..:.
. . "":~':" ;""-,
" -. ........,..:..,:.~',.:.-/ ':".:/.::

'.':p~. ':TøJèi:hcmeeonfëtenCê Wi cllentre thesi,bject ehtilr äl'd
".,:U.:':U'lf. P one:eôri,..renCt.., .Murediid with ..,ui ti.ørig l'aër: ,'~: .e d.j "':;T~~lèlti' iírStl'êtê~ té.iikl?~lhPOl llSèsst()ri.ther:,~I'.:' d' \: i":d' ::'.::'
..'..,.,.... I~........... '. ..FII~'answt ~fid äj)péàrance In còurt
'-"J,"':

....:. . ,"
:.;...:.'

ii' ....,rè.f'ith'er eli\' ofchälr. . .' . .

;;(:';)~~: ,'.:$l~().OO:.":".," . :"";';r: :':::,.:" . . .dd::....\$$;~1:.:;5...~O.:...~OO.............. '...','..,.':.:

, ,/; ';~~,A9:";, :':':.:"'J;."~.~'..,:....:,',:-".:'';"'': .:.\~ ~ ~."". ":';::';/~": /.:::..:' ' ' ...;Oo\' ) ~:,',.~,";'.;':~,: '(~ ~ .i~~::~.;.'d. .........'?'.\~:::':':;"'" ':' ':.:: '.. ;'. .':

u ..i:.\.d.P.:e.par::answr-änd ap¡:át'l1cefur flling. .~ :..:.... ,,". .

//id

'::.::).:~.:,: : . .' . .';' ,,:;.;. :,' . :'. ~ . : ..~ '. :::'; .~; '. . ....,.'.'..

!'...'d~i i("'*rWIl'ofQÒ,ò......and ~~èn~anc 01' ." .' '.'d.'; ..,. . ...:$150:øoii "1.6;')': "$~7ci.9Ô:d !: ~¿ø ;:?.:e!'l)llràtl t'fó ". . . "'., . .'. .' elaltlsl:l'farønl:'êallat'. i",;,'" , .............. .. . ...... ......

.\~~lØ;~1L,,:ù. .... .... ..... . ..' .' .'," .j:h,.;Y c,".:J'/
'" . :.-.'~,~~,;, ',' ,,~r,,::' ~:':.:' ';.~'. -- '.' . ~' . ;:\-\. ",~'
.; '. ... ; ,". ..: .:.:~ . " . .-:::' ,

, J...... /.' ..::.... :,'..'

'. , . ;~~;~,="~.="w:-~~"'M ~~. J.~'.'~¡ ii;; ~.f,.,'.....t... \.;..c'~~.;~'~
:d;:' .:;.',..,,:;;,.';:'~~;,t~ .' .'-;':' ;..;.: .......
'. ..:~~ ..... ,', ... ;:(.;~';:;~':f

:/;:\;r~øphQrieóoÍ'ff:rènCw'it.cirf:llt(ëtriiiltfJr of "i,,~ . .;,:d "
'~".':.,':',' ..-

::';;\\"~'Y'--/:;;: :::.;?: E!.~:i:;:\ :':~''::;'.:. :~;~'/:~:..:::,';'.~:;: :. ;'~~":.: .' " . '. :;":.:.~ ~'.~ ...:0\ : ;'. ::. :~" ...:~ .: ::, .:. ~':;;~..'. ;~:p~;;

.' ...,..... 3)"\~~;;;.:;';;:' ".:;;/
:,:'.'.~. ::.~ . .:,:':.,....:..,.:;F.~.:"?,f;t;;,:~~l9.~tlOO.lJ...O'5:.1.4.P:M....~1...DOA~i.8,l~: ;,,;;:;;;..,.:,..., ,. ";. ..:.;.....'. .' ::':. :~"..:, ' -.....,. ,;.".~.l; ":~''''.:

. .;~. .

. . .:. :..~).:~;X:::~~." ::\~~,': ,: ::.:.: ',: ;'."' . :::..~.. '., ~.:.;..;:.,'.:.: "...

". ".' '~. '..,' '. .'::;~d

; .,;:XL:~.:~; '....' ~~.~.:...~. ~'. ~,~,.._:::.; ::~~,,;:,'. ';::if.ij;~';:~:: );.\\t~,,"k~~~:i~;~,i~~k~~~~~~~I~~

e
4.17.01

e
$150.00

DE Otanize file and prepare it for transfer to substituing attrneys.

0:30 -' $4.00

Fee

Tótål:

8.60 $1,24S.00

l1mekeeper Brèakdown
DaVid SdSéy

Hours Rate Amount
7.60 150.00 $1,110.00

Timothy Stephens

1.00 75.00 $15.00

Expenses
Appearance and Juiy DemandFilng Fee
- Cook County Juiy Verdic Reporter Search

$313,00 110.00

Expense-Total
Total this statement

543.00

$543.0
$1;786.00

Outstanding Balance from bil of 4127

$5,055.00

TOTAL

AMOUNT DUE

$6.43.QO

Please remit T(ltalAmliïit t)Uè WIthin 14 days.

.. .'.. ~ ~"\.

.
O.~f~\-

.
McDonald. & McCaliG 225W. Wacker Drive
Suite

~ \l l i\4

2100

Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312/845"'5190
Fax:

31.2184S.S825' .

FEIN # 364474073
To: Dennis Rafael
. Magna Cart Companies
303 West Madison Stet, Sulte 1725

. ;:

Oate: Måy3, 2007

. FINAl SILL .

Chicago¡ IL606 .

Rø: Doyle .v. Ken¡iri Management
Ò/L: 01/01/07

FEES
4:2".07

RATe

HOURS

AMOUNT

oe Eimlne results of jury verdict results received fim Cook
County Jury Verdict Reporter.

$150.00
$1S0,OÖ

o.M
1.60

$15.00

Oi: Complete preparatin of case value. liabilit and defense
strategy .sèCion of InlUal client status report,

$240.00

. DE Add ssction to jnlliel repo re IMurat's pre-os6 request to
inSlfl'dfor railng modification and effect of same. .

$150.00
$150.00

0.10

$105.00

DE' Telephone conference with Insured re contrl of porc and
Changes to lli1er ra &arne.

.0.30
0.70

$45.00
$105.00

DE Modify answer to reflect tenshls control of porch and add
. affrmative detensere Intervening cause..

$150.00

4.6;01
DE

Examine affdavlt for Geriy Uc:ertari prepared by á;pmey fQr
. Kenatd COittation and telephone coiwersätion wllt /'1m i' .

'. .
....4;~~1.
. " . -. ',: '. "..~'. . : '.'. :'::'::. ';':; :'; ~::: '. '.../.~:

lIame.
;t:-:";:::~.'/

$150.00
.' -/ ..;.: :;.:~:-:;. ".,

0040

'$so.ø.
". .'." ;....;.... '.' .......... .... ..:"'.:J': :'~';'

"',,.
. ...... .~'.'.;'::_': -:...-.::~::-: ;,.... ::):;:

'~ei~~::t~gt1j~~k~tp~::~~:i~et:~rJ~~:~~If'~n~r". ;;.ij..'?\i."c'~'.' .j!b~((:f '#lêP.anti..çôhtilîti'rideil\ilöiiuiMaiid ~it'~~i~édél~¡~6'r'i :;...;"'

¡;!. ....:.~I~~~:~~dO~:~%n~~~~h. ". .., .....,...¡';i.Jfi:.. .t:..... 'd. ':!'';d.'~'.f..~.':'.¡."~,..'...::\,:/..'.::.,............~.'.:..:....ø....oO.,.1.,....::...~:.,...3043..;..:~,o.o;......,....d...',.....,......:. ~; ~ ,. ,.. ',' ~ :. ..' .. :~ ';: ., d .. .. .. .., ..

.......:,;,bf......

tJriip~reanswánd£lPPearin'1fOrfilln9~:.j.. . '../; '\\.'
'.:,' ,.:' '.:'.,':-

::"',:;..:-,;',:. ..
. ,,;':. ''',- ...:.¿:.:.::.... ::_~:(':. ':,::.'

",-. .

.:A.ttirw~o:i; .P~pè~t¡~n.:¿t:~náéttendà~btf~~¡må;~n~~J~;~¡¡;.~,rr.".i,C' );'.1:
':di:f%);~~ .
. :"
tUèt\~ilòtfce.\'!,:;' ..... . ..... '. ....... '. , .: ........ . .............;. ......\:,(;. "., .

"i/C.,!.

..refØøhQi:¡j~rtfél'figØWl:'rel.tlédél\gÎl!ér'r~p~~... &!.~';:(;.':'

.'.,::'

.,:';'
...... :':':¿',".

9hålr'arid'pö~h'ri~Møtti. .' : ...i, ;\.

":'.: , :'. ':~' :';.-' ",:~.' '~.;?,:-;. .'. .

. .~ -.' . ,~. .;:..); ~,:':'.~~

.. ?"i~~lJI~l!i;.#l;~....,::...:...:.......:.:...d.:.....'_.:n.....i;..:,..:.....i.:..,....e,:....:,'..~,....:....æ...:..-,.....:.'..:'...'..:..'...~.ï1...;'.d.:.:...:....'.:ce;..~..;.,~.:,

"'::;'::':: :'~-:". .;::.::;t".:";':.::~'.:,,; . :;'::f;';-;: ;', .-'

. . . ;~ :0' .', . .... ",' . .. '" . .,':-:.: ':',:': .. .... ,'. _ . ,,'.. .' "',' ..:.... ,:.:....:....~..,................:,...,...,:;

'...-:-.,"'~~~ -.:.,-. ;:.:~_:.':. ';':,: '. -'.. ,,''. '. ::. :~,:.:.~;~\ :,..' :~.':. ,: .',:: ~~.,:.~:::::; _..... :.:;\-:,::r.::",:,~" :i::¡~', '~., :,' -';"',:;:' ....-,.... . ,.' .; .,..: :,,:.::~,::':'~-'.:'::-:,:.'.. ,'-,;'..:.;.--:;':';::- '" ;: :"..-,:.'.:.:......_: :.'.,'.. ".: ,:.",'. '..' .... . . . '. ,.:'.;.;~.:,:/:~.~.:.
~:/.. , .':,

..:,~jÔll'~:qp~y9dS':1!§:;,ê,M~,~jØ:Q

. ~;: .': )~:.~:~/::Ù;~' , .., . ',.:'i~-;¡":':" :','. .:.;.:?::.-~;::.

.. .".'*0...

.
FéëTötäh
TImekeeper' Btèakdown.

e
$150.00
0.30

4.11.07 DE Orgänlze fie and prepare It for tran&fet tò &ubstitullng atlt¡meys.
$45.00

8.SÒ

H~tlrs . Rate
t;O. 150.00

Amount
$1,170.00

OavidSdsey . Tlrnolly Stephens

1.00 75.0

$75.0

Expenses
AppéSral'ee and Jury Demand Filng Fee CockCoùnty Jury Verdict Reporter Séilrch

$373.00.
170:00

Expense total

543.00'

$S4~MO

Totl thIs Statemelt
Outstanding Balance from bfl of 4rt01

$1.188.00
$5.0S5~O(ì

TòTALAMOUNrOUE

SG.AA.ÒO

PlfJSG reit føt./Amotll1tDutl within. t Ùiays.

.1 _ _

"J
. ;',:'.. . ~'::. .'1' ;''. . "

,.

r.
i.

1.1.

~c="
5/04/2007'
\ '.

".

:..

PESCRI~TtON
.~. . ':. '.

.:'..,

.. :"'.:.

,-

\

, '\

,I

i

Insu.re~': ~~i1ård'Män~gel1~'nt':;¿~P.~'p~rùs'..eä~k"#l+1:. ::', i Payee: McDonald'& McCabe LLC, ':::.. ',' '''.:, :,::, ,I( ";,..., -,.'
Com'ments: 'iv¡ikr¡'ng ,fini;ij payrnëìjt,6:flÎS'aHo¡'iiéy': '.':::'::,'.; ..:' .
. ' . ..,... .', - :.~:. \- . ';".,; .,: :"~ . ::~.. !.. ", .. ." ! .. .

.... ....ö :'~. .'.. ..: i.: ~ .~. '..

:'.:.,'" .... .' :.... '.1..

, , ..;....;....: .' ..... :....

.' ':.-~ ~;;'::~~..;;:' .:', ;;,;/;,)rj:':¡::.')~"~;:'::',;"'f