Terms Found Only In Headings Cannot Exclude Coverage
After a slip and fall accident during snow and ice removal, Tovar tendered defense to Pekins under its subcontractor’s commercial general liability policy. Both Tovar and Pekins filed cross-motions for summary judgment: Tovar arguing that it was covered under the policy, and Pekins arguing that the policy restricted additional coverage endorsements only to construction contracts and did not include activities relating to snow and ice removal because the word “construction” appeared as a limiting adjective in the endorsement heading. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tovar, and Pekins appealed.
On appeal, the sole issue was whether the text of the policy, which included all written contracts, defined who qualified as an insured or whether the heading/title/caption of that section, which had the language “Written Construction Contract” limited the definition of who is an insured. The court noted that a contract term only used in a heading, and not in the text and not otherwise defined, cannot properly be imposed on an insured to exclude coverage. Additionally, there was nothing to suggest the headline was meant to be the beginning phrase or element of the body text that followed it. The court held that the headline/title of the policy did not limit the text to construction contracts only and that Pekins had a duty to defend Tovar.
Pekin Ins. Co. v. Tovar Snow Professionals, Inc., 2012 WL 1649832, —N.E.2d —- (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2012), No. 1-11-1136.
