Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Over at the Illinois Appellate Lawyer Blog, our colleague Steven R. Merican recently called our attention to an appeals court decision related to insurance coverage for “junk fax” class actions -- an important practice for our firm. Eclipse Manufacturing v. United States Compliance, Nos. 2-06-0825, 2-06-0889 (11/30/07).

In the underlying case, Eclipse Manufacturing Co. filed a class-action lawsuit against United States Compliance for sending Eclipse unsolicited “blast faxes” in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Compliance’s insurer, Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., declined to cover the defense. Compliance later settled with Eclipse by simply assigning its right to the full limits of its coverage under the policy. In order to collect this settlement, Eclipse then filed a third-party citation against Hartford.

In part because Hartford hadn’t sought a declaratory judgment on its obligation to defend Compliance, estopping it from raising policy defenses, the trial court sided with Eclipse. Hartford later filed for declaratory judgment in Minnesota, where Compliance is based, but its claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Hartford appealed, arguing that it was not estopped because the trial court should have applied Minnesota law, which it argued conflicts with Illinois law on estoppel. Furthermore, Hartford argued, its policy doesn’t cover the underlying lawsuit under either state’s law. The Illinois Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court, saying there was no conflict in outcomes between Illinois and Minnesota laws of estoppel. Thus, Hartford was estopped from raising policy arguments -- making them irrelevant.

As Merican points out, the appeals court also addressed its jurisdiction -- important because Hartford’s “protective” notice of appeal might have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction until recently. It was filed before a recent change in Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(a)(1), which previously said a party must file its notice of appeal within 30 days of a final judgment. When Hartford filed its appeal, there had been no final judgment -- merely a notice from the trial court that it intended to rule for Eclipse. That would mean the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

While the appeal was pending, however, Rule 303(a)(1) was changed to address this situation, treating appeals like Hartford’s as if they were filed on the date of the final judgment, making it a legitimate appeal. Because the appeals court had recently ruled in In Re Marriage of Duggan No. 2--06--0061, (October 16, 2007) that a similar rule change applied retroactively to pending appeals, it allowed Hartford’s appeal “[i]n the interest of consistency.” Nonetheless, the appeals court eventually ruled against Hartford.

Our firm has sucessfully certified class actions involving junk faxes and obtained substantial class wide settlements from the defendants and their insurance carriers. If you want to contact one of our Chicago consumer attorneys to pursue a junk fax case click here.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed a victory to plaintiffs throughout Illinois with its 2006 ruling in an insurance dispute over whether insurers must cover the costs of a junk fax class action lawsuit for an insured covered for an “advertising injury.” In Valley Forge Insurance Co. v. Swiderski Electronics, Inc., 2006 Ill. LEXIS 1655, the state Supreme Court ruled that business insurers have a duty to defend “junk fax” class action lawsuits.

The underlying dispute in the Illinois Supreme Court case started when private investigator Ernie Rizzo filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Swiderski Electronics for sending him “junk faxes.” Unsolicited advertisements sent via fax violate both the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Swiderski had an insurance policy from Valley Forge Insurance Company, which insured Swiderski against a personal or advertising injury that arises out of “Oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy[.]” The insurer claimed that because the faxes had not revealed Rizzo’s own personal information, they did not invade his privacy and thus were not covered. They also claimed that sending information via fax does not constitute publication.

The insurer asked a trial court for a declaratory judgment stating it was not obligated to cover Swiderski; all parties filed cross-motions seeking summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of Swiderski, as did the appellate court and, eventually, the Illinois Supreme Court. That court rejected Valley Forge’s arguments, rejecting the claim that faxing is not “publication,” using the plain meaning of the word. It also ruled that privacy under the federal TCPA and caselaw includes the right to be left alone:

The receipt of an unsolicited fax advertisement implicates a person’s right of privacy insofar as it violates a person’s seclusion, and such a violation is one of the injuries that a TCPA faxad claim is intended to vindicate.

That contradicts the a 2004 decision by the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in American States Insurance Co. v. Capital Associates of Jackson County Inc., 392 F.3d 939, which found no duty to defend under very similar circumstances. The Seventh Circuit’s earlier ruling said privacy rights may include the right to seclusion in some cases, but “advertising injury” clauses do not, so insurers have no duty to defend in junk fax cases. Because the Seventh is bound by Illinois Supreme Court precedent in cases involving Illinois law, the more recent ruling overturns American States, handing a victory to plaintiffs and businesses who are plagued by unwanted junk faxes.