James River Insurance Co. v.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division · 2017 · Evidence

Evidenceinsuranceclaims-made policynoticewritten demand for monetary damagessummary judgmentpolicy ambiguityextended reporting period

Facts

James River issued professional liability policies to Geico Direct Representatives for October 1, 2011 to October 1, 2012, and then for October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2013, covering affiliated agents such as TimCal. On July 9, 2012, Fidelity sent TimCal a letter asserting that TimCal had submitted inaccurate information on a homeowner's application, stating Fidelity had been damaged by the amount it would be required to pay on the insured's fire loss, and stating that Fidelity would seek to recover those damages from TimCal. TimCal did not give James River notice of Fidelity's claim until April 3, 2013. James River then sought a declaration of no coverage based on untimely notice, and Fidelity argued the July 2012 letter was not a claim, notice might have been given earlier, and policy renewal made the April 2013 notice timely.

Issue

Whether James River owed TimCal a duty to defend or indemnify where Fidelity sent TimCal a July 2012 letter seeking recovery of monetary damages, but TimCal did not notify James River until April 2013. The court also considered whether any ambiguity in the policies or need for drafting-history discovery precluded summary judgment.

Rule

When an insurance policy unambiguously defines a claim as a written demand for monetary damages, a letter demanding payment for alleged damages qualifies as a claim even if it does not state a specific dollar amount. Under a claims-made-and-reported policy, coverage exists only if the claim is first made and reported in writing during the applicable policy period, and renewal does not extend the reporting period absent cancellation or nonrenewal provisions providing an extended reporting period. If policy language is unambiguous, courts apply it as written and need not permit discovery into drafting history or other extrinsic evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Mutual Underwriters issued a professional liability policy to a mortgage broker in Chicago for January 1, 2024, to January 1, 2025. The policy defines a claim as "a written demand for monetary damages" and requires that claims be first made and reported in writing during the policy period. In November 2024, a lender sent broker Elena Park a letter stating that her underwriting errors caused losses and that the lender would seek reimbursement, but the letter did not state a dollar figure. Park reported the matter to Lakeshore in February 2025 after renewing the policy.

Is the November 2024 letter most likely a claim under the policy?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, when a policy unambiguously defines a claim as a written demand for monetary damages, a letter asserting damage and stating that the sender will seek recovery qualifies as a claim even without a precise dollar amount. The focus is the written demand for money, not whether a settlement figure is included. (Derived from James River Insurance Co. v. (n.d.).)