Busch v. Country Fin. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-14-0621,5-14-0621 |
| Citation | 2017 IL App (5th) 140621 -U |
| Parties | GEORGIE BUSCH, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Amber Wood, Deceased Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTRY FINANCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
Decision filed 04/13/17. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where the insurance company's payment to plaintiff on the uninsured limits of plaintiff's individual policy did not negate liability on a separate policy issued to plaintiff and plaintiff's deceased daughter.
¶ 2 This appeal is taken from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Georgie Busch, and against defendant, Country Financial Insurance Company (Country Mutual).1 The trial court found that Country Mutual's payment to plaintiff under an insurance policy issued solely to plaintiff did not negate Country Mutual's liability on a separate policy issued to plaintiff and plaintiff's deceased daughter after finding an ambiguity in the provisions of the policies. We affirm.
¶ 4 The following facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff is the mother of Amber Wood. On April 27, 2012, at approximately 1:49 a.m., 23-year-old Amber was killed by a speeding hit and run driver as she attempted to cross South Broadway in St. Louis, Missouri. At the time of the accident, plaintiff and Amber were insured under the following two insurance policies issued by Country Mutual:
¶ 5 Following Amber's accident, plaintiff, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Amber Wood, deceased, sought uninsured motorist coverage pursuant to the two policies. The parties stipulated there was no question of liability and that the total amount of damages for wrongful death met or exceeded $350,000, which is the total combined uninsured limits of the two policies. On or about July 24, 2014, Country Mutual paid the $250,000 uninsured limits under the policy listing plaintiff as the sole named insured. The parties do not dispute that Country Mutual has no further obligation to plaintiff concerning the uninsured motorist benefits under that policy. However, Country Mutual denied plaintiff, as the special administrator of Amber's estate, coverage under the policy listing plaintiff and Amber as the named insureds with uninsured motorist limits of $100,000.
¶ 6 The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Country Mutual asserted that the $250,000 it had already paid plaintiff was the maximum amount it was obligated to pay in relation to Amber's accident under both policies pursuant to the policy provisions. Plaintiff argued she was entitled to $100,000 as the special administrator of Amber's estate in addition to the $250,000 she had received individually under her own policy since Amber paid a separate premium on a separate policy and it was stipulated that the total amount of damages met or exceeded $350,000.
¶ 7 On November 20, 2014, after briefing the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion and denied Country Mutual's motion after finding an ambiguity in the provisions of Country Mutual's policies. The court determined this ambiguity must be resolved in favor of plaintiff, and its order provided that plaintiff was entitled to $100,000 under the subject policy in addition to the $250,000 plaintiff hadreceived under her individual policy. On December 19, 2014, Country Mutual timely filed its notice of appeal.
¶ 9 The issue raised on appeal is whether the uninsured limits to the two insurance policies issued by Country Mutual to plaintiff and Amber may be aggregated. Country Mutual alleges the trial court erred in refusing to enforce the unambiguous antistacking clauses of the two policies. In contrast, plaintiff contends the trial court's finding of an ambiguity in the policies' provisions was correct, and, therefore, the court's order directing Country Mutual to pay plaintiff, as special administrator of Amber's estate, an additional $100,000 should be affirmed. Plaintiff asserts Country Mutual's prior payment to plaintiff under the policy issued solely to plaintiff does not negate Country Mutual's liability on the separate policy issued to plaintiff and Amber. For the following reasons, we agree with plaintiff and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
¶ 10 As previously stated, this appeal is taken from the trial court's grant of a summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and against Country Mutual. Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2012). When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they agree that only a question of law is involved and the court should decide the issue based on the record. Millennium Park Joint Venture, LLC v. Houlihan, 241 Ill. 2d 281, 309, 948 N.E.2d 1, 18 (2010). We apply de novo review to both the court's summary judgment ruling and to theextent we construct the terms of the insurance policies. Pekin Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 237 Ill. 2d 446, 455, 930 N.E.2d 1011, 1016 (2010).
¶ 11 When a court construes an insurance policy, the agreement is to be enforced as written provided that it is unambiguous and only to the extent it does not contravene public policy. Johnson v. Davis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 602, 606-07, 883 N.E.2d 521, 526 (2007). In general, antistacking clauses do not contravene public policy. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 607, 883 N.E.2d at 526. Moreover, the Illinois Insurance Code expressly authorizes the use of antistacking provisions in motor vehicle insurance policies. 215 ILCS 5/143a-2(5) (West 2012). However, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 607, 883 N.E.2d at 526-27.
¶ 12 In determining whether an ambiguity exists, the provisions of an insurance contract must be read together and not in isolation. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 607, 883 N.E.2d at 527. Policy provisions are considered ambiguous if they are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 607, 883 N.E.2d at 527. Reasonableness is essential, and the benchmark is whether the provision is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, not whether creative possibilities can be suggested. Johnson, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 607, 883 N.E.2d at 527.
¶ 13 Here, plaintiff and Amber purchased two insurance policies from Country Mutual. The first policy, policy No. A12A8077880, lists plaintiff and Amber as the named insureds and includes uninsured motorist limits of $100,000. The second policy, policy No. A12A3258332, lists only plaintiff as the named insured and includes uninsured motoristlimits of $250,000. Each policy contains, in relevant part, the following language in section 2 of the policies, which specifically concerns uninsured-underinsured motorists coverage:
¶ 14 A plain reading of this portion of the policies indicates Country Mutual contemplated situations in which more than one insurance policy may apply to a single occurrence. Specifically, the "Other Insurance" clause provides that Country Mutual will pay its proportionate share of a loss where there is other applicable...
To continue reading
Request your trial