Pace Communication Services Corporation v. Express Products

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 2nd District Appellate » 2011 » Pace Communication Services Corporation v. Express Products

State: Illinois

Court: 2nd District Appellate

Docket No: 2-10-0743 NRel

Case Date: 03/22/2011

Preview:No. 2--10--0743 Opinion filed March 22, 2011 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ PACE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CORPORATION and TUNICA PHARMACY, INC., Individually and as the Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Lake County. ) ) ) Plaintiffs and Citation Petitioners) Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 04--L--1043 ) EXPRESS PRODUCTS, INC., ) ) Defendant ) ) Honorable (Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, ) David M. Hall, Citation Respondent-Appellant). ) Judge, Presiding. ___________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE BOWMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Zenoff and Birkett concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION The circuit court of Lake County entered an agreed order between plaintiffs, Pace Communications Services Corporation and Tunica Pharmacy, Inc., and defendant, Express Products, Inc., providing for a monetary judgment against defendant that could be satisfied only through the collection of the proceeds of any applicable liability insurance policy. Plaintiffs then issued a citation to discover assets against citation respondent, Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Cumberland), an insurer of defendant. Cumberland moved to dismiss the citation, arguing in part

No. 2--10--0743 that a nationwide coverage clause within the liability policy it issued to defendant was an insufficient basis for the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over it. Cumberland also sought dismissal based on improper service. The trial court denied Cumberland's motion. We granted Cumberland's petition for leave to appeal under Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(3) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(3) (eff. Sept. 1, 2006)), and we now affirm the trial court's judgment. I. BACKGROUND Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business also located in Pennsylvania. Cumberland is a New Jersey corporation with offices in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Ohio. Cumberland issues policies for fire loss and commercial general liability, insuring property and businesses in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. Cumberland issued defendant sequential annual liability policies covering the period from April 26, 2001, to April 26, 2003. The policies both contain the same material terms and provide a general aggregate limit of $2 million; a personal and advertising injury limit of $1 million; a per-occurrence limit of $1 million; and other limits not relevant here. The policies state that Cumberland "will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any `suit' " seeking damages covered by the policies if the injury or offense took place in the " `coverage territory,' " the definition of which includes the "United States of America." Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against defendant in December 2004 alleging that it violated provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C.

Download Pace Communication Services Corporation v. Express Products.pdf