Opinion
21-cv-1753
09-02-2021
WESTFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff, v. DAVID DRESDNER, et al., Defendants.
Richard T. Valentino, Esq. SmithAmundsen LLC
Richard T. Valentino, Esq. SmithAmundsen LLC
AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
Ronald A. Guzman, Judge
Plaintiff, Westfield Insurance Company (“Westfield”), by SmithAmundsen LLC, moves the Court for entry of a declaratory judgment in its favor for the relief sought in its Complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant to the stipulation of Defendants, David Dresdner, Sherwood Blitstein, Richard Blatt (collectively the “Individual Defendants”) and Mosaic Springhill, LLC (“Mosaic Springhill”), and in support hereof state as follows:
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment, brought by Westfield pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. See, Westfield's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, [Doc. 1, p.1]
2. Westfield issued a Commercial Insurance Policy to the Spring Hill Building 1, 4 5 and 6 Condominium Associations and the Springhill Master Association. The policy was renewed on similar terms for three annual periods. [Id., ¶ 96] Each included Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) and Officers and Directors Errors and Omissions Liability (“D&O”) coverages, the terms of which are set forth in the Complaint, [Id., ¶¶ 96-119]
3. This action arises from an underlying suit entitled Kai, et al. v. Board of Directors of Spring Hill Building 1 Condominium Association, Inc., et al., Case No. 2018 CH 960, pending in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois (the “Kai suit”). [Id., ¶ 37]
4. The complaints filed in the Kai suit allege that the Plaintiffs in said suit owned condominium units at the Spring Hill Property in in Roselle, Illinois. [Id.] The Plaintiffs alleged that the Individual Defendants owned or controlled Mosaic Springhill, which owned the majority of units in each of the condominium buildings. [Id., ¶ 40] The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Individual Defendants comprised the majority of the board of directors of each building association and used their positions to pursue a “bulk sale” of the associations pursuant to Sec. 15 of the Condominium Property Act to Mosaic Beverly, LLC, another entity they allegedly owned and/or controlled. [Id.] The Plaintiffs alleged that the prices they were offered for their units in the proposed “bulk sale” were below fair market value and that the low prices were caused by the Individual Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties that they, as association board members, owed to the Plaintiffs. [Id.]
5. The Individual Defendants and Mosaic Springhill have maintained and continue to maintain that they were acting within their rights in pursuing the “bulk sale” and acted in full compliance with Sec. 15 of the Act.
6. The Individual Defendants and Mosaic Springhill tendered the Kai suit to Westfield for defense and indemnity under the Westfield policies. Westfield filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that they are not entitled to either defense or indemnity because their alleged liabilities fall outside of the scope of coverage provided by the Westfield policies, and on other grounds, as more fully set forth in Westfield's Complaint. [Id., ¶ 121 (a) - (1)]
7. The Parties have reached a settlement, pursuant to which the Individual Defendants and Mosaic Springhill have stipulated and agreed that Westfield is entitled to the judgement it seeks in this action. The Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8. Pursuant to the Stipulation, Westfield requests that the Court enter a declaratory judgment in its favor. A proposed judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit B .
9. This motion is brought with the agreement of counsel for the Individual Defendants and Mosaic Springhill.
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth hereinabove, Westfield prays that the Court enter a declaratory judgment as aforesaid.