Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Exclusion for Violation of Consumer Protection Laws Does Not Bar Coverage for Alleged Violation of Landlord-Tenant Law

iStock-618946910
By Edward R. Brown on December 2, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

An Illinois intermediate appellate court has held that an exclusion for claims arising from “unfair or deceptive business practices” including “violations of any local, state or federal consumer protection laws” did not bar coverage against an insured property manager for alleged violations of a city residential landlord-tenant ordinance.  Evergreen Real Estate Servs., LLC v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2019 WL 5704599 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2019).

An insured property manager was sued for alleged violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.  It sought coverage from its professional liability insurer, which defended it under a reservation of rights.  In ensuing coverage litigation, the trial court ruled in favor of the insured and the insurer appealed.

In substance, the insurer argued that coverage was barred by an exclusion for any claim arising from “unfair or deceptive business practices” including “violations of any local, state or federal consumer protection laws.”  The court found that argument to be “logically sound,” but it was “not persuaded” that the ordinance was a “local consumer protection law” as used in the policy.  According to the court, the ordinance “has the purpose of balancing the rights and obligations of both tenants and landlords.”  By contrast, the court suggested that consumer protection laws, narrowly read in the policy, may refer solely to laws designed protect the public against oppressive practices by merchants.  The court thus ruled that while “landlord and tenants derive direct benefit from the [ordinance], … only purchasers of goods and services derive direct benefit from consumer protection laws.”  For that reason, the court found the exclusion not to apply.  The court also ruled that the exclusion for “unfair or deceptive business practices” did not apply because an insured could violate the ordinance, such as through “innocent inaction or oversight,” without being found to have committed an unfair or deceptive business practice as defined by state consumer protection statutes.

Photo of Edward R. Brown Edward R. Brown

Ted serves as coverage counsel for claims under professional liability and general liability policies, with a focus on media, technology, and privacy-related exposures. He routinely advises insurers in connection with cyber insurance and other first- and third-party technology risks.

Read more about Edward R. BrownEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Insurance
  • Blog:
    Wiley Executive Summary
  • Organization:
    Wiley Rein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • GovCon & Trade
  • Pro Policyholder
  • The Way on FDA
  • Crypto Digest
  • Inside Cybersecurity & Privacy Law
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo