Pan-Oceanic Engineering Company, Inc. v. Grange Mutual Insurance

── Pan-Oceanic Engineering Company, Inc. v. Grange Mutual Insurance ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250511-U SECOND DIVISION April 14, 2026 No. 1-25-0511 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ PAN-OCEANIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, ) Appeal from the INC., ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, ) ) v. ) No. 21 CH 1439 ) GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE, ) ) Honorable Cecilia A. Horan, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McBride and D.B. Walker concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s summary judgment decision and attorney fee order. ¶2 Pan-Oceanic Engineering Company, Inc. (Pan-Oceanic) held an automobile insurance policy with Grange Mutual Insurance (Grange). Pan-Oceanic’s employee, Lavonta Green, while driving a Pan-Oceanic company truck, collided with another vehicle driven by Fletcher McQueen. McQueen then sued Green and Pan-Oceanic for personal injuries. McQueen’s lawsuit, which 1-25-0511 eventually included a request for punitive damages, resulted in a jury verdict in his favor that awarded both compensatory damages and punitive damages. This led to a coverage dispute between Pan-Oceanic and Grange. Pan-Oceanic filed a declaratory judgment action, requesting the court declare that Grange must cover punitive damages, appeal bonds, and certain attorney fees. The parties eventually cross-moved for summary judgment, and the circuit court issued an order that, among others, required Grange to pay attorney fees for the underlying litigation but found that Pan-Oceanic was responsible for punitive damages awarded in the underlying litigation. The parties appeal virtually every aspect of the circuit court’s summary judgment decision. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 A. The Underlying Personal Injury Matter ¶5 This coverage dispute appeal stems from a 2012 vehicular collision. To fully understand this appeal, we provide background information as to the personal injury lawsuit that eventually led to the appeal. ¶6 On August 17, 2012, Green was an employee of Pan-Oceanic. On that day, Green received instructions to pick up a piece of digging equipment and transport it on a flatbed truck. Green allegedly reported that the equipment had been loaded onto the flatbed incorrectly, but upon reassurance from a Pan-Oceanic supervisor, he drove the flatbed truck and lost control. The truck’s trailer swung into a car that McQueen was driving, injuring McQueen. At that time and all times relevant hereto, Pan-Oceanic carried a commercial automobile insurance policy (“Policy”) with Grange. ¶7 On January 31, 2014, McQueen sued both Pan-Oceanic and Green for personal injuries. Pan-Oceanic agreed to Grange defending it in the lawsuit. Grange in turn assigned its panel