Courts Must Never Speculate About Facts Not in Evidence
Post 5192
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6z2r2s-duty-to-defend-is-not-without-limit.html and at https://youtu.be/3hhYFmKmGmA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5,150 posts.
Injuries to Others at McDonald’s Do Not Provide Duty to Defend Suit by Employee Who Did Not Incur Bodily Injury
in McdDonald’s Corporation, et al v. Homeland Insurance Company Of New York, No. 23 C 16297, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division (September 10, 2025) McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s USA LLC (collectively, “McDonald’s”) sued Defendant Homeland Insurance Company of New York (“Homeland”) challenging Homeland’s denial of coverage under a commercial general liability insurance policy.
BACKGROUND
A McDonald’s franchisee operated the McDonald’s restaurant (“Restaurant”) located in Chicago, Illinois. (hereinafter, “PRSOF”). From March 1, 2015 through March 1, 2018, the franchisee maintained a commercial general liability policy (“Policy”) issued by Homeland.
Section I of the Policy provides: “We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies.” Importantly, the Policy dictates that a bodily injury is covered only if takes place during the policy period, i.e., March 1, 2015, through March 1, 2018.
McDonald’s attempted to utilize the Policy after being sued by a Restaurant employee in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Sonia Acuna, et al. v. McDonalds, et al., No. 2019 CH 13477 (“Underlying Action”). Ultimately, Acuna was a party to four different complaints in the Underlying Action; her participation culminated with the filing of the third amended complaint on July 19, 2021. Since Acuna was the sole plaintiff in the Underlying Action who worked at the Restaurant, only her specific claims are relevant to this dispute.
After evaluating the lawsuit and the Policy, Homeland denied coverage because Acuna did not allege any “bodily injury” during the policy period.
DISCUSSION
The factual allegations in the amended complaint state a vicarious liability claim that falls within the coverage of the insurance policy, and therefore, plaintiff’s amended complaint was not an improper or unsupported attempt to plead into coverage.
The Operative Complaint includes allegations of specific incidents involving Acuna, which McDonald’s concedes cannot trigger Homeland’s duty to defend because they occurred outside the policy period, and more generalized allegations of harm.
An insurer has a duty to defend when the complaint’s allegations fall within or potentially fall within the coverage provisions of the policy. Because a complaint need not allege or use language affirmatively bringing the claims within the scope of the policy, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify.
The duty to defend depends on the facts underlying a complaint, not the specific legal theory on which the plaintiffs base their claims. Illinois courts follow the so-called “eight-corners rule” where courts determine the duty to defend by looking only within the four corners of the insurance policy and the four corners of the complaint for which defense is sought.
The insurer’s duty to defend, while broad, is not without limits. Notwithstanding the breadth of the duty, the claim against the insured must still contain explicit factual allegations that potentially fall within policy coverage. While the Court must examine the underlying claims with care, it cannot read into the complaint facts that are not there.
Generalized allegations are not enough
The gist of Acuna’s claims is that witnessing bodily injury inflicted on others resulted in psychological harm to her. The Operative Complaint, and all preceding complaints for that matter, were devoid of facts establishing that Acuna sought damages for a covered bodily injury that occurred during the policy period.
A Court may not find a duty to defend based on conjecture. The duty to defend may be broad, but Illinois law does not permit the court to speculate about possible factual scenarios that are absent from the claim itself. Even if it could, second-hand injuries such as fear and emotional distress caused by viewing other persons’ bodily injuries are simply not covered by the Policy.
Therefore the Court found no duty to defend and granted summary judgment in favor of Homeland.
ZALMA OPINION
The Illinois 8 corners rule made the decision of the Court obvious because the allegations of the complaint by Ms. Acuna did not fit the definitions of injury within the policy’s effective dates. Since there must be a bodily injury within the policy’s effective dates and no evidence existed the court properly refused to speculate and granted Homeland’s summary judgment.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
