In a construction injury coverage dispute, Johnson & Bell Shareholder, Glenn F. Fencl successfully argued that his client’s duty to defend or indemnify a construction contractor as an additional insured was never properly triggered under the policy. Based on this condition, Mr. Fencl further argued that the construction contractor was therefore not entitled to potentially $1.6 million in coverage under his client’s policy. A Cook County court agreed with Mr. Fencl’s claims and granted summary judgment in favor of his client. This coverage dispute involved a serious injury at a construction site in 2007. In 2012, the construction company and its primary insurer agreed to a settlement of nearly $2 million. At the time of settlement the construction company and its primary insurer demanded that our client pay $1.6 million to them under an additional insured endorsement. After denying the demand on the basis that notice to the client was not reasonable, Mr. Fencl filed a declaratory judgment complaint asking the court to resolve the dispute. Mr. Fencl argued on summary judgment that the construction company breached its policy by not disclosing the nature, extent or potential liability associated with the construction site injury for nearly five years. In addition, Mr. Fencl argued that his client did not have actual notice that its policy covered or potentially covered the construction company with respect to the serious injury at the construction site. After oral arguments, the court agreed with Mr. Fencl’s client and granted summary judgment in his client’s favor.