1E9Ct5D

Therefore, when an insurance company retains an attorney to defend an action againstone of its insureds, the attorney must work toward furthering the interests of both theinsured and insurance company. 34 In Peppers, the insured owned a building adjacent toa pizza restaurant. The building was insured by appellee insurer under a general liabilitypolicy and the insured's home was covered under a homeowner's policy by appellantinsurer. The insured injured a trespasser on his property whom the insured thought wasburglarizing the property. When appellee insurer denied coverage of the incident, theinsured sought coverage and defense from appellant insurer under the homeowner'spolicy. Appellant brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of itsrights and obligations.The trial court held that the general liability policy did not cover the occurrence inquestion and that appellant was obligated under its homeowner's policy to defend theinsured in the personal injury action. The court reversed the holding as to the denial ofcoverage. On appeal, the court reinstated the trial court's ruling with respect tocoverage, as no prejudice to the insured resulted, but held that the trial court erred infinding that the insured had intentionally caused the injury to the trespasser becausesuch a finding was premature and not proper in the declaratory judgment action. TheIllinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment affirming the judgment ofthe trial court as to appellee insurer, reversed the appellate court's holding thatappellant insurer was estopped to deny coverage under its policy, and vacated thefinding of the trial court that the injury was not within the coverage of either policy34 See generally Md. Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill.1976).26