Navigators Specialty Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Onni Contracting (Chicago) Inc., Onni Hudson LLC, and two of Onni’s insurers, Houston Casualty Company and Allied World Assurance Company, regarding coverage under a commercial general liability policy. The case arose after Steven Szilva, an employee of USA Hoist Company, Inc., was injured on a construction project involving Onni. Szilva subsequently sued Onni and others, prompting Navigators to seek a declaration that Onni was not an “Additional Insured” under its policy with USA Hoist and that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Onni in Szilva's lawsuit. Onni counterclaimed for a declaration of coverage under the Navigators policy.
USA Hoist intervened, asserting similar claims for declaratory judgment regarding Onni's status as an additional insured. After multiple motions, the trial court ruled in favor of Allied World, Onni, and USA Hoist, granting them summary judgment while denying Navigators’ motion. The court concluded that Navigators was obligated to defend Onni as an additional insured but did not address the issue of indemnification. Navigators appealed this ruling, but Allied World later moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the order was nonappealable due to the lack of a final disposition of all claims and absence of a Rule 304(a) certification. The appellate court denied the motion to dismiss, and the trial court later indicated it had not certified its prior decision under Rule 304(a).
Navigators appeals the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion and the granting of summary judgment motions by Allied World, Onni, and USA Hoist. Allied World questions the jurisdiction of the appellate court to consider the appeal, despite a previous denial of its motion to dismiss by another panel, which is nonbinding and may be reconsidered. The appellate court's jurisdiction is independent and must be confirmed regardless of parties’ actions, as established in Mayle v. Urban Realty Works, LLC, and Nwaokocha v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. Generally, appeals are permissible from final orders that resolve all claims raised; however, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a), appeals can also be made from judgments involving multiple parties or claims if the trial court explicitly finds no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal. Navigators argues that the trial court issued a final judgment, citing a statement made during the proceedings. While acknowledging the absence of Rule 304(a) language, Navigators claims the court’s declaration suffices for finality. The appellate court emphasizes that the perception of finality by the court or parties does not determine appealability; rather, the order's substance and effect must be assessed. A judgment is deemed “final” if it resolves the rights of the parties concerning the entire case or a distinct part of it.
A final judgment involving fewer than all parties or claims is not appealable unless the trial court includes a specific finding under Rule 304(a). In this case, the order appealed by Navigators did not resolve all claims, as it noted that the indemnity issue was still pending and did not address claims against Houston Casualty. Importantly, the order lacked the required Rule 304(a) language indicating there was no just reason to delay the appeal. The trial court did not include such language, nor did the parties request it. Previous cases cited by Navigators, such as Fremont Casualty Insurance Co. and Steadfast Insurance Co., involved courts that included Rule 304(a) findings, which conferred appellate jurisdiction. In contrast, without such findings in the current case, the judgment regarding the duty to defend is not appealable. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed due to the absence of a final and appealable order.
