Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer

98 Citing cases

  1. Stoneridge Dev. Co. v. Essex Insurance Co.

    382 Ill. App. 3d 731 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 90 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the cases relying on this definition generally stem from Freyer

    " The policy does not define "accident," but this court has defined the term as "an unforeseen occurrence, usually of an untoward or disastrous character or an undesigned, sudden, or unexpected event of an inflictive or unfortunate character." Westfield National Insurance Co. v. Continental Community Bank Trust Co., 346 Ill. App. 3d 113, 117 (2003), citing Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App. 3d 617, 619 (1980). Many other cases have also applied this definition, relying primarily on Freyer. See, e.g., Viking Construction Management, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 358 Ill. App. 3d 34, 42 (2005); State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Tillerson, 334 Ill. App. 3d 404, 409 (2002); Monticello Insurance Co. v. Wil-Freds Construction, Inc., 277 Ill. App. 3d 697, 703 (1996); Indiana Insurance Co. v. Hydra Corp., 245 Ill. App. 3d 926, 929 (1993); Travelers Insurance Cos. v. EC. Quote, Inc., 211 Ill. App. 3d 719, 726 (1991); see also Black's Law Dictionary 15 (7th ed. 1999) (defining "accident" as "[a]n unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be reasonably anticipated").

  2. West American Insurance v. Vago

    197 Ill. App. 3d 131 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)   Cited 33 times
    In West American Insurance v. Vago, 197 Ill. App. 3d 131 (1990), and Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App. 3d 617 (1980), there were no allegations that the insurance company waited 4.5 years to file a declaratory judgment action, as Country Mutual did here.

    Since such injuries should have been reasonably anticipated by Vago, they are "expected" injuries under the Bay State holding and were not covered because of the exclusionary clauses in the two policies. See also Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer (1980), 89 Ill. App.3d 617, 620. • 8 The trial court also concluded that the Indiana policy was ambiguous because it provided coverage for personal injuries to others under certain circumstances and included injuries resulting from some intentional torts in the definition of personal injury, while at the same time it excluded coverage for personal injuries expected or intended by the insured. If an insurance policy is ambiguous, it will be construed in favor of the insured.

  3. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Young

    2012 Ill. App. 103736 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 31 times

    In its oral announcement, the court stated that the allegations against the defendant “did not constitute an accident.” The court cited Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill.App.3d 617, 44 Ill.Dec. 791, 411 N.E.2d 1157 (1980), for the proposition that consequences desired or reasonably anticipated by an actor are not accidental injuries compensableby insurance. The court noted that the defendant had pleaded guilty to criminal battery; it found the defendant's acts of providing Gina with heroin and of beating her were willful and malicious.

  4. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dahms

    2016 Ill. App. 141392 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 29 times
    In Dahms, the choice of approach did not make a difference, because, in that case, "[f]or the same reasons that the allegations in the underlying complaint could potentially allege an accident, the exclusion for intentional acts is not applicable[.

    American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Enright, 334 Ill.App.3d 1026, 1031, 269 Ill.Dec. 597, 781 N.E.2d 394 (2002). Generally speaking, an injury caused by an assault and battery is not considered to be accidental. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill.App.3d 617, 619, 44 Ill.Dec. 791, 411 N.E.2d 1157 (1980).¶ 46 Our supreme court has cautioned against deciding the ultimate fact of the insured's intent in an underlying lawsuit during a declaratory-judgment action over the duty to defend that lawsuit.

  5. State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Martin

    296 Ill. App. 3d 466 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    The natural and ordinary consequences of an act do not constitute an accident.'" State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Watters, 268 Ill. App.3d 501, 506, 644 N.E.2d 492, 495-96 (1994), quoting Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App.3d 617, 619, 411 N.E.2d 1157, 1159 (1980). This court further explained the term by stating that an accident "involves the consideration of whether the injury was expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured."

  6. St. Paul Ins. v. Landau, Omahana Kopka

    619 N.E.2d 1266 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    In this case, the trial court determined that St. Paul had no duty to defend or indemnify the firm or the Landau defendants because the St. Paul policy does not "cover personal injury or advertising injury that results from written or spoken material made public by or for the protected person if the material is known by that person to be false." The trial court indicated that its decision relied on this court's opinion in Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer (1980), 89 Ill. App.3d 617, 411 N.E.2d 1157. In Freyer, the insurer claimed it had no duty to defend against claims for assault and battery and property damage because the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage "which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured."

  7. Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Heitbrink

    No. 3:15-CV-03352 (C.D. Ill. May. 17, 2017)

    " Illinois courts define an accident as "an unforeseen occurrence, usually of an untoward or disastrous character or an undesigned[,] sudden or unexpected event of an inflictive or unfortunate character." Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App. 3d 617, 619 (1980); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Young, 2012 IL App (1st) 103736, ¶ 26; Lyerla v. AMCO Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 684, 688-89 (7th Cir. 2008) (using the Illinois courts' definition of "accident" where the policy did not define the term "accident"). "The natural and ordinary consequences of an act do not constitute an accident.

  8. Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dahms

    2015 Ill. App. 141392 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)

    American Family Mutual Insurance. Co. v. Enright, 334 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1031 (2002). Generally speaking, an injury caused by an assault and battery is not considered to be accidental. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App. 3d 617, 619 (1980). ¶ 36 Our supreme court has cautioned against deciding the ultimate fact of the insured's intent in an underlying lawsuit during a declaratory-judgment action over the duty to defend that lawsuit.

  9. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Stox

    330 N.C. 697 (N.C. 1991)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "accident" may "include injury resulting from an intentional act, if the injury is not intentional or substantially certain to be the result of the intentional act."

    Therefore, the plaintiff reasons, Owens will be found liable in that action, if at all, only for intended injuries. The plaintiff primarily relies here on Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill. App.3d 617, 411 N.E.2d 1157 (1980), where a tort action for assault and battery was filed against the defendant insured for beating a woman with his fists causing bruises, a black eye, and other injury. In Freyer, the injured woman alleged that the acts were "wanton, willful and malicious on the part of the defendant."

  10. LM Ins. Corp. v. Vill. of Lyons

    2023 Ill. App. 221529 (Ill. App. Ct. 2023)

    ¶ 60 We also reject Liberty's argument the exclusion cannot create an ambiguity because of the inherent repetitiveness of insurance contracts. Liberty cites Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Freyer, 89 Ill.App.3d 617 (1980), but that decision does not aid Liberty's position. The issue in that case