United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 22-2776 & 22-2858 HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY CO., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. ZHEN FENG LIN and LI CHEN, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. ____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:20-cv-01415 — Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JUNE 1, 2023 — DECIDED APRIL 1, 2024 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, WOOD, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PRYOR, Circuit Judge. Zhen Feng Lin was in a car accident while working as a food delivery driver for Win Win Seafood Wholesale, LLC in 2017. Lin sustained serious injuries in the collision, but the at-fault driver, Katherine Chickey, was un- derinsured. Lin—along with his wife, Li Chen, who brought a loss of consortium claim—settled with Chickey in a state- court suit for her insurance policy limits of $100,000. Lin also received workers’ compensation benefits from his employer’s 2 Nos. 22-2776 & 22-2858 workers’ compensation insurance carrier, Hartford Fire In- surance Company (“Hartford Fire”). Lin then sought to re- coup his additional losses under his employer’s underinsured motorist policy, provided by Hartford Accident and Indem- nity Company (“Hartford Accident”). Although Lin and Hartford Accident initially agreed to ar- bitrate the question of Lin’s damages, the insurer and the in- sured saw eye to eye on little else. Unable to resolve issues around arbitration and the underinsured motorist policy lim- its, Hartford Accident filed this declaratory judgment suit against Lin and Chen in federal court seeking to clarify the extent of its liability. 1 Over the next four years, the parties sparred over the scope of the policy’s arbitration clause, whether Hartford Accident acted in bad faith in delaying the resolution of Lin’s claim, and to what extent the underinsured motorist policy’s $1 mil- lion limit should be reduced by sums Lin received from other sources. In the end, neither party was satisfied with the result, and both appealed. Because the district court was correct on all fronts, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND This appeal involves orders at various stages of litigation: a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); an order denying a motion to compel arbitration; and a grant of a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In reviewing the dismissal and summary judg- ment orders, we take the facts and allegations and view them

1 From here, we refer to Lin and Chen collectively as “Lin,” unless context requires us to distinguish between the two. Nos. 22-2776 & 22-2858 3 in the light most favorable to Lin and Chen, the non-movants, and construe all reasonable inferences in their favor. Dixon v. County of Cook, 819 F.3d 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2016). For the order denying Lin’s motion to compel arbitration, we view the facts in the light favorable to Hartford Accident. Tinder v. Pinkerton Sec., 305 F.3d 728, 735–36 (7th Cir. 2002). Zhen Feng Lin was injured in a car accident in Chicago on March 24, 2017, while making a delivery for his employer, Win Win Seafood Wholesale, LLC. The impact of the crash knocked him unconscious and fractured his spine. Lin sought compensation to cover the medical costs, pain, and lost work associated with his injuries. First, Lin went to state court and sued Katherine Chickey, the driver who crashed into him. See Lin v. Chickey, No. 2017- L-00571. Then, about a month after he sued in state court, Lin, pursuant to the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, filed a claim with