WASCO v. Bituminous (Ill. App. (1st) 2013)

In WASCO v. Bituminous, WASCO sought coverage under Bituminous policies issued to Palm Oil and PORI International, arguing that the policies were transferred to WASCO or “assigned” to WASCO, or that WASCO was the corporate successor of the named insureds, and therefore entitled to the coverage afforded by the policies. When Bituminous declined to defend WASCO for an underlying environmental claim, WASCO sued Bituminous in Illinois state court, alleging breach of the duty to defend and bad faith claims handling practices.

After discovery and motion practice, the Circuit Court of Cook County granted summary judgment in favor of Bituminous, and WASCO appealed. In a 35-page opinion, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed entry of summary judgment in favor of Bituminous, holding that Bituminous had no duty to defend or indemnify WASCO. The court held that an anti-assignment provision in the Bituminous policies barred the insureds from assigning their rights under the policies without Bituminous’ consent. The record contained no evidence that Bituminous was aware of or consented to the assignment of its policies. The court also held that there was no evidence in the record that the policies had actually been transferred to WASCO under terms of the asset-purchase agreement relied upon by WASCO.

John E. Rodewald handled all aspects of the litigation at the trial and appellate levels.