In the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Plaintiff-Appellee) filed a lawsuit against Distinctive Foods, LLC and RyKrisp, LLC (Defendants). The case ID is 1-22-1396 and it was filed on March 22, 2024. The suit revolves around whether the plaintiff insurance company had a duty to defend or indemnify the defendant in an underlying lawsuit.
The details of the case involve RyKrisp, a cracker manufacturer, who alleged that Distinctive Foods wrongfully seized and withheld their cracker-manufacturing equipment. This resulted in interference with RyKrisp’s contractual business relationship with a third party. At the time of these events, Distinctive had two insurance policies with State Auto: A Businessowners Liability Insurance Policy and a Commercial Umbrella Liability Insurance Policy.
State Auto sought a declaratory judgment stating that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify Distinctive under either policy. The circuit court granted State Auto’s motion for summary judgment finding that it had no duty to defend Distinctive under either policy because Distinctive’s CEO acted intentionally knowing his actions would cause harm to RyKrisp.
The plaintiff is seeking affirmation of the judgment by the circuit court which found that they did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the defendant in this case. They argue that the claims in the underlying plaintiff's complaint did not fall within the coverage provided by their insurance policies.