# Oral argument — Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bible Pork, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A21870 ## Record - **Collection:** Oral argument - **Document type:** Oral argument - **Published:** September 2, 2015 ## Text Call For Largely Coun Company versus Bible wor whenever you're ready to for plaintiff insurance c today on a case that is d appellate in the Supreme the question is, do you s of insurance? These are t the primary policy and unv very standard contracts f the courts. Um, commercia policies are not auto pol workers compensation poli operation. I'm sure Bible long relationship with co or different years. Uh, B when it's brief, a longst relationship. There have under various policies wi before they've been paid liability and other claim whether there are many or the issue for this part i lawsuit is covering the p on the duty to defend as there's no question of is solely a duty to defend c filed in the third jury j trial court after cross m of judgment issued its or in the appendix, which fo that there was a duty to covered damages um, caus not exclude that triggered And we're in our briefs w trial for expecting the a and that finding and depa longstanding Illinois law and torture of existing l this case to reach that r lawsuit again was there w two minutes. I'm sorry. S weren't changed that much accounts for public or pr count. The third count, th complaint was only counte is account for private nu other complaint. All compl in that they only asked f a nuisance of order, not of any kind of order of p nuisance. And again, the accountants, the only onl These policies that we're have the same um, coverag umbrella includes persona injury, which is broader includes certain persona but both of them require injury or that the lawsuit of bodily injury or propr by an occurrence. So clea there has to have been so happened, whether it has as the final in the polic law that caused bodily in damage that the lawsuit s is not excluded. And here are each one of the same. me to various plaintiffs. their property interest, ailments. None of the leg they have caused by any c at any time whatsoever. T was a plan to build a hog farm housing thousands o that if completed as desi they're alleging their fe will happen that could ca at that time. They don't has actually occurred. Th has happened to any of the or personal injury, but o in each version of the co will be will happen in th that actually happened in as a, as a legend, no, no are sought in the complaint less each version of the have the language, um, th order of nuisance that wa deemed appropriate in the look at my declaratory de this case, I asked for th could probably find 90% o complaints filed in the s unprecedented with no sup law. The trial court found language by itself was su covered damages, triggeri and a duty to defend. And the briefs, the address t trial court lied on almos was the B. H. Smith case, New York law, which was a was a lot of you can, we d of having the entire recor that case and you know, s were an unaligned complai was brought pursuant to t opinion. And of course, f occurred that there's bee had occurred, which invol of an advertising idea. S a personal injury that ha which was brought into th specific statute of the F that allows for certain d and prescription of amoun statutes like the T. C. P certain damages for viola allows for damages. The c reference the fact that a by one of the parties tha damages and you can refer deems each other appropri we have a covered injury t Unlike here, we have no c already occurred there. T that already occurred for brought into the land act Here we have a clerical ju the clerical connection i procedure, not of substan act is a statute of subst harm and remedies allow u act depending on the proo court then bolstered when that the unprecedented st the border plate language figures and duty to defend we're also most of them re that in the underlying la for underlying plaintiff' statements in that court well, in the future, depe some of my clients might else depending on the fac wasn't wasn't that statem proposition that success of deeming this a nuisance would result in uh underl claims being pursued as t of this litigation. Well, I don't want to presume t I guess that would be a sc don't know what is not. N assuming that he was succ argument that this would quote, well, he said might the next step. He said so might or might not do, mi might seek damages. I mea they quoted from. I'm sure during the course of the p But that's what he, so fo they were successful and and he said, well, we now the court saying, you kno operations, they can't op their facility or they go That wouldn't be for bott that would just be, they facility and nothing woul know, there's not a state well, my client now has e hog waste in the air or m my, my pond is polluted. like that kind of thing t future. He's talking abou talked about. Obviously p be amended to their, you allows, we need to be ame people. Many times we'll act case and someone suing like end of us prior, the only for battery. Maybe t in the future to add a ne called all safers Cariota there was a stabbing by 1 amended complaint to let fell upon the person with the court had to determine an accident or not. It di and saying, well, in the amended to add something might amend it. The examp I could go on this very s sued a car company for To the, whatever the accelera and asked for a cancelati purchase the vehicle beca I don't want a car that c accelerate and getting an kill me or cause damage i you don't cancel the cont I'm going to sue you for I have in the future. Wel you can deal with that la that was covered in those deal with what happened w The complaints amended, y When the complaint is ame is superseded. If there's you address them. That's w is no law finding that th obviously speculate and s be added in the future. B they did see even saw dama damages for what time per on what conditions are the the loss of the enjoyment isn't about an injury or What will they actually a excluded? Would it be by the neighbors was an emplo It is an employee exclusi There's all kinds of, we you know, no court has ev you can't operate in a va and conjecture. You look alleged. The pelican said You're still tied to the of the complaint is true they never saw those cove recovery for covering dam it's not a policy that co many losses that are cove aren't covered. All kinds happen or could be a busi employees or workers comp C. T. L. Policy could be by the court suing for di That wouldn't be covered damages or probably even why you're just looking i these contracts applied t some imaginary lawsuit or be filed in the minor, mi the future for unknown th You've got a trial judge, read the complaint for nu tried this matter or cons wasn't tried with summary got the underlying lawsui have cross motions for su got indications of counci on the underlying nuisance would probably be going f damages that would be cov to defend is broader than by. We're not at that sta not considering that quest reasonable for a trial ju evaluated and say this is when looking at the plea statements of counsel, al of the court and and conc for defense is clearly in summary judgment of this Well, of course, this rev is, you know, oh, I know focusing on. I realize it think either. I don't thin counsel argues with that. posing. Um, I am looking and reasonability of what it at this point. I know, in a de novo and your hono just say that was his ana He is going behind with t law that controls this to He's basically Germany. W you know, there's no reaso couldn't have amended or s if they really want to se was not a win. It was ame allegations were sought e like cause or says did ca suffered it each time. He future over and over again there's no draftmanship e tense versus the future t over and over again. And says, I guess if you're l he's saying, no, I didn't my pleadings. That's what to allege. Nothing else i that I filed. And now if to his statements in court do again, he doesn't say for damage. And he says m of his clients might or m might seek an injunction. at some, what if there's future? Why? In this case of policies in the record What if there was a differ language and that policy the damages, at least for from now, four years from know, he's not suing for why it's called. That's w or hypothetical complaints with what's alleged. Now I understand they cite, t this comes under this tru which was sort of uh, add the people versus Wilson Court. You know, they rel from the trial. I've tell addressed that doctrine. also the subject of my su and the Maryland versus D about the in the Supreme Court. They said only an circumstances. Do you loo outside the complaint? An I quoted from file works the duty defendants determ the case, not, you know, to the jury or make statem to the court. It's at the case. How can you say wha start one year in the cas says, well, I might in th How, how would that be ap That's why it's not, it's rule. It's not the rule o they currently are hold a go case. They explained t facts documents. There's on it because the Supreme and people versus Wilson. defense of self defense, would not have been pled That's why they didn't. T to consider the affirmed and whether an exception for expected or intended they talked about these b supplied by the insurer t be true that don't involv liability here. And rembe an amended plea that was it wasn't actually filed. to consider it saying, w So here we don't even hav at a hearing talking abou might draft up in the fut but he didn't even draft it or proposed it or or a wasn't sufficient where w It was a record, but it w leave wasn't granted to f courts that we're not goi the true unpled facts doc officially filed. And so they still won't go to th attorney in court about s pleadings he might file i some unknown theory, unkn exclusion might or might don't know. We don't have to compare and that's a t allegations in his room i while they're liberal, ri have given favor to uh li the allegations there, th tied to the actual words that exist, not the hypo then even if you got past other hurdles in the case any coverage from the out I don't want to deliver t we just our briefs, whethe current, whether it's an intended. Here they alleg we think will happen if y punching the face, you're Okay, if you haven't ques you do, I'm telling you r hurt and causing damage. plant, it's not a good si going to hurt me in the f that's not an accident. T the lion's case was a cas a trespass where there wa that the party performed they were trespassing on and deliberately did that be an accident because th did intend to clear the l to go on someone else's p did. And here we have all do this in the future, it to me. So, you know, as s is true, you know, they'r occurrence or we expect t already have an advance n which you must consider i get to things like the, y like the pollution excluj we've read the briefs. Ok Thank you. Mhm. Good afte may place the court on Al my colleagues, Julie Liar Kester on behalf of Bible to be here after almost 1 insurance coverage under by country mutual. And as country mutual and Bible relationship. This case i claim for coverage of def a comprehensive general l been a lot of back and fo the exact natures of this this is a simple, straigh cost. Illinois law makes mutual had a duty to defend in the Pearson lawsuit be for damages. The possibli that the complaint only p within the coverage of th be liberally construed. T is triggered when there's of coverage, which affirm that. Countries claim tha for damages in the underl simply wrong for several all the country hides beh that the original complai complaints were anticipato The interesting argument the facility was sued whi timely notice was given t of the lawsuit. Country m knew when the facility wa was under operation, cont facility while it's under in their first amendment amendment complaint refus nuisance claim out. Howev we refer to in our briefi is arguing about as some refers to them as hearsay are statements made by co the plaintiffs in hearings that they either amend th anticipatory out now that was in operation and also not, they needed to plea for damages. And the cour that under 701 C. Mr. Roth for the Pearson's had pro because under 701 C. It's a supplemental proceedings was found to be a nuisance finding a nuisance is a f had occurred. Mr Bullock, Would you respond to Mr C about the issue of whethe an occurrence has defined whether or not there was or property damage. Yes, that the there was a once actually came in the way that owners from the faci their property. All of th it was an interference wit enjoyment of their proper that it had some level of life, which would be one of the nuisance. And some it had some physical impa At least two of the defen become physically ill, sm their property. So we bel to to be an occurrence un I'm sorry, your second, t question. One was the occ the public injury in the damage is defined in the an interference with the property. If it's ruled t the damages are the fact value of the property. So damage as covered under t it was found to be a temp there is either the possi relief and or the loss of property. So the property under at least under a de standpoint, we would belie be covered had we reached we did not that that woul of personal injury and th from people's physical di with smelling the others. was aware of these allega them copies of the transc of testimony. So country was no longer an anticipa claim, but the plaintiffs claiming that it was an a that time. And Illinois l from Alport Marine on dow by whatever decision the counsel makes and how the pleading on behalf of the is the level of 701 C. Th else he could have put in that underlying sufficient particular statute. Yeah. your honor's point. Uh, t doesn't define damages. T an opportunity to do that and other policies. But u that damages is a broad d mutual made no effort to in any of its policies an same policy language to b the duration of velocity. policy that we're talking umbrella policy, but partic policy is a comprehensive general liability policy mutual wants to somehow e from the terms of the pol comes down to this in term regarding whether or not properly or not. As Judge at the oral argument for motions, it really defies that the Pearson plaintiff for nuisance and then expe from. In fact, if you look standards, the court is o have some entry of a findi a finding after there woul nuisance. As Judge Hardig at that oral argument, wh plaintiffs to do? And the still has no compelling r that question because oth have spent four years, a the court's time, includi and hearing the appeal fr to have just a nuisance a and then do nothing else. logic to say that that wa this and it defies what 7 Mr. Carson raises issues exclusion. It's important as an initial matter, the claims, not only for odor but also from noise. Nois under these policies. So of all, you may not even about whether or not the applies. Secondly, Illinois last five years has develo which examine the exact s or very similar policy la that others from swine fa traditional environmental not therefore barred unde This is a discussion of t case through the hilltop case actually addresses t policy that's found in th in a recent the silver pr the central federal distr country has raised an argu the damages or the injuri was from this facility wa Nothing could be the trut truth. And that just actu this as well. By report f issue. In this case was p of Illinois. Uh, it was l the Livestock Management takes into account how fa should be set back. There was no expectation that a would occur from this fac was operating as a lawful facility under Illinois l key issue is that country would leave policyholders that Illinois coverage se would be coverage would b of the underlying plaint pleading. In fact, it's e this lawsuit, not only th but throughout this lawsu was aware that there was not a hypothetical dispu dispute, but an actual di this facility was a priva says we're not going to d actually lose this case, come back to us because a you might have an actual we would still raise all defenses. That would be l in a huge lurch to say yo yourself to a certain poi step in merely because th the unlikeness chose to p way this. We had all of t necessary to find coverag in this case, had an occu None of the property excl we respectfully request t the underlying order of c Thank you. Council. Um, a made by council there. Fi very beginning and answer about witnesses testifying of certain injuries or b or other things that occu in these pleadings. That arguing on true, true, un something you stated now don't know whether it hap happened. It's not part o not the opposite of the c at a trial seven years af it really happened, if it could be used in a true o even could have been argu which is not. Instead, we when he died, the question didn't allege any property injury caused by an occur to be alleged to occur as from a couple of cases th address this very issue, and the country protecti the duty to defend must n as the inherent power of damages when none are pra holding would alter the r the parties and obligate regardless of insurance p No actual damage to pray for example, in community excluded by the policy. W well, I think we're tied of the complaint by the p law says. You look at the complaint, consider them a claim for potential cov you're tied to the compla some. Well, I was the law and I think this relief w they don't want that relie for that relief. Maybe yo as to this policy. If the you look, then there might many, there's thousands o complaints in the civil l policies. Some are covera Not every lawsuit is a co every act of injury is so in this thing. There's ju you look at there's a con like other countries. The in terms of occurrence of cited the O. M. C. Case i was a different case. We was only an environmental after a pollution that oc for which O. M. C. Was be were by injunction saying money to clean up what's or you got to reimburse u done to clean up of what that occurred, damaging t our situation at all. We not have any actual body that has occurred for whi are sought, which are nec before you get to any exc burden of insurer to firs the coverage of the polic is the insurer's burden t to show that exclusion ap cannot meet their additio allegations of this compl but in fact, that's docto say can't be faxed, apply have to be known by the i have to be certain other Maryland first go doesn't for this hypothetical amu attorney years later, wha do under certain circumst exclusion referred to, c hilltop decision and the are in the briefs building where the court did not a where it was alleged the were caused by the normal plant here. The allegati in the future, if the des is built as constructive, we fear the owners will n of the plant, but some un would be the traditional that columbus and the oth Columbus talked about if which never did, never al to be something in the fi even get to the pollution addressing pollution excl argument. They're saying Well, you go beyond the c the allegation. You look later, even if it's not i know, but if you've got t then the pollution exclus apply in any event. But th noise. Uh, well, no, we d allegations of noise is c We don't have any body in But in any event, for the today, your honor is expe this court reversed the t judgment. Thank you. Thank --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/argument%3A21870. Public record. Not legal advice.