Armstrong v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-91-1007,2-91-1007 |
| Citation | 172 Ill.Dec. 109,595 N.E.2d 172,229 Ill.App.3d 971 |
| Parties | , 172 Ill.Dec. 109 Robert S. ARMSTRONG, by his Mother and Next Friend, Phyliss Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Markham M. Jeep, Markham M. Jeep, P.C., Waukegan, for Robert S. Armstrong.
Glen E. Amundsen, Michael Resis, Mary T. Nagel, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Waukegan, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Plaintiff, Robert S. Armstrong, by his mother and next friend, Phyliss Armstrong, brought an action for declaratory judgment against defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, seeking a determination of his rights to uninsured motorist coverage and medical coverage under four policies. Two of the policies were issued to Robert; one was issued to Phyliss Armstrong, and the other was issued to Steven Armstrong.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that plaintiff was allowed excess uninsured motorist coverage only to the extent of the difference between his primary coverage and the coverage under Phyliss Armstrong's policy. The trial court thus declared plaintiff entitled to a total of $100,000 uninsured motorist coverage. The court then held that plaintiff was entitled to the full combined limits of the medical insurance under all four policies which totalled $76,000.
Plaintiff appeals from that part of the judgment which prevented him from "stacking" uninsured motorist coverage under all the policies. Defendant cross-appeals from that part of the judgment allowing plaintiff to "stack" the medical coverages under all the policies. We affirm the trial court on the uninsured motorist claim and reverse the trial court on the medical coverage claim.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On June 12, 1987, plaintiff, while riding his 1987 Honda motorcycle, was struck and seriously injured by a car. The driver of the car had no automobile insurance. Plaintiff was hospitalized. He incurred and continues to incur substantial medical expenses.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was residing with his mother, Phyliss Armstrong, and his brother, Steven Armstrong. All three family members had automobile insurance policies with defendant. All of the policies covered plaintiff, either as a named or unnamed insured. The policies provided coverage as follows:
Uninsured
Motorist Medical
Named Insured Vehicle Insured Limits Limits
Robert 1987 Honda motorcycle $25,000 $1,000
Robert 1979 Chevrolet Malibu 25,000 25,000
Phyliss 1987 Plymouth Colt 100,000 25,000
Steven 1986 Mazda 50,000 25,000
----------
Each policy was written on "State Farm Policy Form 9813.6" (Form 9813.6). Each policy includes "Amendatory Endorsement 6989G" relating to uninsured motorist coverage and "Amendatory Endorsement 6989PP.1" for changes in medical coverage.
Form 9813.6 defines "car" as "a land motor vehicle with four or more wheels." The policy issued on plaintiff's 1987 Honda contains a further amendment stating that the definition of "car" would be changed to include a "2-wheel land vehicle with wheels in tandem."
Under each policy, uninsured motorist coverage is provided by "Coverage U." Prior to the issuance of Amendatory Endorsement 6989G, this section read:
"If There Is Other Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage
If other uninsured motor vehicle coverage issued by us to you also applies to the insured's bodily injury, the total limits of liability under all such coverages shall not exceed that of the coverage with the highest limit of liability.
Subject to 1. above:
(a) If the insured sustains bodily injury:
we are liable only for our share. Our share is that per cent of the damages that the limit of liability of this coverage bears to the total of all such uninsured motor vehicle coverage applicable to the accident.
(b) If the insured sustains bodily injury while occupying a vehicle not owned by you, your spouse or any relative and uninsured motor vehicle coverage also applies from a policy not issued by us, coverage under this policy applies:
(1) as excess to any uninsured motor vehicle coverage which applies to the vehicle as primary coverage, but
(2) only in the amount by which it exceeds the primary coverage.
If coverage under more than one policy applies as excess:
a. the total limits of liability shall not exceed the difference between the limit of liability of the coverage that applies as primary and the highest limit of liability of any one of the coverages that apply as excess; and
b. we are liable only for our share. Our share is that per cent of the damages that the highest limit of liability of any policy issued by us bears to the total of all uninsured motor vehicle coverage applicable as excess to the accident.
Amendatory Endorsement 6989G reads in relevant part:
"d. If There Is Other Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage
(1) Item 2(b) is changed to read:
b. If the insured sustains bodily injury while occupying a vehicle which is not your car, coverage under this policy applies:
(1) as excess to any uninsured motor vehicle coverage which applies to the vehicle as primary coverage, but
(2) only in the amount by which it exceeds the primary coverage.
If coverage under more than one policy applies as excess:
a. the total limits of liability shall not exceed the difference between the limit of liability of the coverage that applies as primary and the highest limit of liability of any one of the coverages that apply as excess; and
b. we are liable only for our share. Our share is that per cent of the damages that the highest limit of liability of any policy issued by us bears to the total of all uninsured motor vehicle coverage applicable as excess to the accident.
(2) Item 3 is deleted."
In arguing the motions for summary judgment, defendant conceded that paragraph 1 of Form 9813.6 was irrelevant to whether plaintiff could "stack" uninsured motorist coverage under the policies issued to Phyliss and Steven Armstrong, as Phyliss and Steven each received only one policy from defendant.
Defendant argued, however, that as a result of paragraph 2b of Amendatory Endorsement 6989G, plaintiff was limited to collecting $100,000 uninsured motorist coverage. Defendant argued that under the endorsement the policies of Phyliss and Steven were excess coverage and that defendant was entitled only to excess coverage in the amount by which the highest limit of either policy exceeded plaintiff's primary coverage, i.e., the $75,000 difference between plaintiff's coverage limit and Phyliss' coverage limit. Plaintiff maintained that because the endorsement was ambiguous, it was not an effective "antistacking" provision. Plaintiff therefore claimed entitlement to the full uninsured motorist coverage limits of all the policies combined.
The trial court agreed with defendant that the policy as amended limited plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage to $100,000. The trial court also held that plaintiff was entitled to "stack" the medical coverages under all four policies for a total limit of $76,000. Both sides appealed.
The following general principles are applicable to both issues. The construction of an insurance policy is a matter of law for the court to determine. (Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hecker (1989), 183 Ill.App.3d 13, 15, 131 Ill.Dec. 721, 538 N.E.2d 1277.) The rules of contract construction apply to the interpretation of insurance policies; therefore, courts should try to determine and apply the intent of the parties. Monsalud v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1991), 210 Ill.App.3d 102, 106, 154 Ill.Dec. 748, 568 N.E.2d 969.
Policy provisions against the "stacking" of coverage are not necessarily violative of public policy. (Menke v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. (1980), 78 Ill.2d 420, 36 Ill.Dec. 698, 401 N.E.2d 539; Georgantas v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. (1991), 212 Ill.App.3d 1, 4, 156 Ill.Dec. 394, 570 N.E.2d 870.) However, to prevent "stacking," the provision upon which the insurer relies must clearly and unambiguously do so. (Goss v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1986), 147 Ill.App.3d 866, 870, 101 Ill.Dec. 238, 498 N.E.2d 562.) Whether a provision in an insurance policy is ambiguous--that is, fairly susceptible of more than one interpretation--depends on a reading of the provision in its entire factual context and not in isolation. Putzbach v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1986), 143 Ill.App.3d 1077, 1081, 98 Ill.Dec. 265, 494 N.E.2d 192.
We hold first that the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage is limited to $100,000. We agree with defendant and the trial court that the amendatory endorsement unambiguously prevented "stacking" and limited plaintiff to the excess coverage conceded by defendant. For clarity, we set out the relevant provisions as amended:
"If There Is Other Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage
If other uninsured motor vehicle coverage issued by us to you also applies to the insured's bodily injury, the total limits of liability under all such coverages shall not exceed that of the coverage with the highest limit of liability.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co. v. Dugan
...proration clause at the end of the antistacking provision does not introduce ambiguity"); Armstrong v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 229 Ill.App.3d 971, 172 Ill.Dec. 109, 595 N.E.2d 172, 176 (1992) ("The presence of a ‘proration clause’ at the end of the provision does not introduce ambig......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. McFadden
...to that set forth in the single policy with the highest limit. See, e.g., Armstrong v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 229 Ill.App.3d 971, 974–76, 172 Ill.Dec. 109, 595 N.E.2d 172 (1992). This concept is consistent with the section of the Illinois Insurance Code authorizing anti......
-
Johnson v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America
...of law. Granite State Ins. Co. v. Degerlia, 925 F.2d 189, 191 (7th Cir. 1991); Armstrong v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 229 Ill.App.3d 971, 974-75, 172 Ill.Dec. 109, 112, 595 N.E.2d 172, 175 (2d Dist.1992). I. Count Plaintiffs, in essence, want to "stack" insurance coverage under three ......
-
Shefner v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co.
... ... (Armstrong v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1992), 229 ... ...