Personal Injury - Defamation
(1) West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rosemont Exposition Servs., Inc.
880 N.E.2d 640, 316 Ill. Dec. 904 (Ill. App. Ct. (1st Dist.) 2007)
? Former employees brought a suit for defamation and retaliatory discharge. The appellate court held that the defamation claim was excluded from coverage so the insured did not have a duty to defend, affirming the trial court opinion. The court reasoned:
The sole defamatory statement alleged in the Bagnalls’ complaint was that they were involved in a fraudulent workers’ compensation claim. That alleged defamation was perpetrated to provide the grounds for RES’s termination of the Bagnalls’ employment and can, therefore, only be construed as being employment-related. The complaint makes no additional allegations of defamation that could ultimately bring the case beyond the scope of the ERP exclusion.
Id. at 652.
? The ERP exclusion states:
“This insurance does not apply to:
‘Personal and advertising injury’ to
(1) A person arising out of any:
. . . .
(b) Termination of that person’s employment; or
(c) Employment-related practices, policies, acts or omissions, such as coercion, demotion, evaluation, discipline, reassignment, defamation, harassment, humiliation or discrimination directed at that person; . . . .”
Id. at 643.
? The court cited and reviewed a number of cases, principally out of state, and most typically from California, in reaching its determination.
