City of Collinsville v. Illinois Municipal League Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, ___ N.E.2d ___, 2008 WL 4879161 (Ill. App. Ct. (4th Dist.) 2008) (McCullough)
The court found that the suit by Developers, which asserted, among other rights, redress for violations of constitutional rights, fell outside the scope of exclusions for “zoning and land use determinations; the taking, in whole or in part, of any real or personal property or any interest therein, or the right to the possession, benefit, use or enjoyment thereof; adverse possession; dedication by adverse possession; trespass; or similar actions[.]”
It did, however, fall within
an endorsement to the policy RMA L, which defines “personal injury” as an injury arising out of “discrimination against an individual or group on any basis prohibited by the law of Illinois or of the United States of America” and committed during the coverage period. The court reasoned:
In this case, the Developers filed a complaint against plaintiffs seeking monetary damages for alleged violations of the Developers' constitutional rights under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2004).
The Association admits “there is no civil or constitutional rights act violation exclusion that applies to [RMA 1 and RMA 2] coverage grants.”
Id. at *5.
But the exclusion asserted by the insurer in RMA 4 was found by the court to not endorse forms RMA 1 and 2 and thus a duty to defend arose. The court did not discuss whether Developers also alleged property damage as defined by the agreement. Id. at *5.
