Opinion
21-cv-1753
09-02-2021
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff, v. DAVID DRESDNER, et al., Defendants.
Westfield Insurance Company David Dresdner Richard T. Valentino, Melissa A. Anderson One of Its Attorneys Sherwood Blitstein Richard Blatt Melissa A. Anderson One of His Attorneys Mosaic Springhill, LLC Melissa A. Anderson One of Its Attorneys
Exhibit A
Westfield Insurance Company David Dresdner Richard T. Valentino, Melissa A. Anderson One of Its Attorneys
Sherwood Blitstein Richard Blatt Melissa A. Anderson One of His Attorneys
Mosaic Springhill, LLC Melissa A. Anderson One of Its Attorneys
STIPULATION TO ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Ronald A. Guzman, Judge
The Parties hereto, Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company (“Westfield”), on the one hand, and Defendants, David Dresdner, Sherwood Blitstein, Richard Blatt and Mosaic Springhill, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), on the other hand, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment, brought by Westfield pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
2. This action arises from an underlying suit brought against the Defendants and others, entitled Kai, et al. v. Board of Directors of Spring Hill Building 1 Condominium Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 2018 CH 960, in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois (the “Kai suit”). The allegations in Westfield's Complaint, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 37-62 and 84-92, accurately describe the allegations of the complaints filed in the Kai suit.
3. Westfield issued a Commercial Insurance Policy to the Spring Hill Building 1, 4 5 and 6 Condominium Associations and the Springhill Master Association, with an effective period of July 12, 2016 to July 12, 2017. The policy was renewed on similar terms for three consecutive annual periods and the four policies are collectively referred to as the “Westfield policies.” Each of the Westfield policies includes a Commercial General Liability coverage part (“CGL”) and a “Condominium Association Directors and Officers Liability Coverage Form” (“D&O Coverage”). The terms, conditions and exclusions of the Westfield policies forth in Westfield's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 96-119, are true and correct.
4. The Defendants tendered the Kai suit to Westfield for defense and indemnity under the Westfield policies. Westfield filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Defendants are not entitled to defense and/or indemnity under the Westfield policies on a number of grounds as set forth in Westfield's Complaint. Doc. 1, ¶¶ 121 (a) - (1).
5. The Defendants and each of them stipulate and agree that the grounds for relief set forth in Westfield's Complaint are meritorious and, based thereon, Westfield is entitled to entry of a declaratory judgment in its favor, finding and declaring that Westfield owes no duty to defend or duty to indemnify any of the Defendants with respect to the Kai Complaints or the events alleged therein.
6. Westfield stipulates and agrees that it waives its claim for reimbursement of the attorneys' fees and litigation expenses it paid on Defendants' behalf in connection with the Kai suit.
7. Each party hereto stipulates and agrees that it shall bear its owns costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this action.