United States Seventh Circuit

In an action involving an insured party's request to be reimbursed for the costs of retaining independent counsel to defend against EEOC charges, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the mere potential for punitive damages requests in future litigation does not give rise to an actual conflict warranting the appointment of independent counsel; 2) the EEOC charges do not contain any claims that defendant willfully violated the law or any fact allegations regarding defendant's knowledge of anti-discrimination laws, and thus do not contain mutually exclusive claims that requires the appointment of conflict counsel; and 3) only the employment practices liability part of the insurance policy is applicable.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/10/2009
• Decided 06/03/2009
• Published 06/03/2009

Judges

• WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge., Before CUDAHY, WILLIAMS, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Seventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Shaun M. Baldwin, Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, LLP, Chicago, IL, Thomas H. Crouch, Meagher & Greer, Scottsdale, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Robert B. Baker, Surdyk & Baker, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.