|
Homeowner |
Controlled
Substance |
In May 2002, Janice Aeschlimann filed a complaint against Robert Long and
others seeking damages related to the death of her daughter, Sara. The
complaint alleged that someone put a methamphetamine
drug in Sara's drink, causing a toxic overdose. Long was
accused of "knowingly participat[ing] in the chain of distribution" of the drug that
was eventually ingested by Sara. At the time of Sara's death, Westfield
National Insurance Company insured Long under a
homeowners policy, and Westfield Insurance Company insured him under a personal
umbrella policy. Long tendered the suit to Westfield National and
"We
do not provide coverage for: Bodily injury...arising
out of the use, sale, manufacture, delivery, transfer or possession by any
person of a Controlled Substance(s) as defined by the Federal Food and Drug
Law."
Citing this exclusion, Westfield
National and
Long appealed, arguing that
the drug exclusion in the policies was inapplicable because the complaint did
not directly link him to the act that caused Sara's death. The Illinois Court
of Appeals was unconvinced, citing earlier case law
that found an insurer has no duty to defend its insured "if the underlying
complaint alleges facts that, if true, would exempt the insured from
coverage." The court found it was clear that Sara's death arose out of the
sale, delivery, transfer, or possession of methamphetamine.
The only activity alleged against Long was his distribution of an illegal drug.
Therefore, the exclusion applied, and the insurers were not obligated to defend
or indemnify. The decision of the lower court was affirmed.
Westfield
National Insurance Company vs. Long-No. 2-03-0556-Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District-June 10,
2004-811 North Eastern Reporter 2d 776