Glazewski v. Coronet Ins. Co., s. 60670

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Citation: 108 Ill.2d 243,91 Ill.Dec. 628,483 N.E.2d 1263
• Docket Number: 60773 and 60777,Nos. 60670,s. 60670
• Parties: , 91 Ill.Dec. 628, 54 USLW 2220 Gary M. GLAZEWSKI et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. CORONET INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1985

Page 1263

483 N.E.2d 1263 108 Ill.2d 243, 91 Ill.Dec. 628, 54
USLW 2220 Gary M. GLAZEWSKI et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants,
v.
CORONET INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees. Nos. 60670, 60773 and 60777. Supreme Court of Illinois. Oct. 3, 1985.

Page 1264

[108 Ill.2d 245] [91 Ill.Dec. 629] Lord, Bissell & Brook, Schiff, Hardin & Waite, Chicago, for defendant-appellant American Ambassador Cas. Co.; Hugh C. Griffin, [108 Ill.2d 246] Walter C. Greenough, Chicago, of counsel.

Leo M. Bleiman, Leo M. Bleiman, P.C., Donald A. LeBoyer, Chicago, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants; David A. Novoselsky, Chicago, of counsel.

Robert D. Allison, Neistein, Richman, Hauslinger & Young, Ltd., Chicago, for defendant-appellee Comet Cas. Co.

Beermann, Swerdlove, Woloshin, Barezky & Berkson, Chicago, for defendants/appellants; Alvin R. Becker, Steven P. Garmisa, Chicago, of counsel.

MILLER, Justice:

The plaintiffs brought this action in the circuit court of Cook County seeking individual and class relief against the defendants, insurance companies, for fraud and for a violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 121 1/2, par. 311 et seq.) arising from the sale of underinsured-motorist coverage with limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per occurrence (15/30). The plaintiffs--Gary M. Glazewski, Lori A. Glazewski, Robert Sandoval, and Ella Shaw--had purchased[108 Ill.2d 247] coverage in that amount from defendants Coronet Insurance Company, American Ambassador Insurance Company, and Industrial Fire and Casualty Company between January 1981 and March 1982. The plaintiffs alleged that the coverage had no value because of the way in which "underinsured" was then defined by statute. In the first two counts the plaintiffs

Page 1265

[91 Ill.Dec. 630] requested compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and costs and attorney fees; they also requested punitive damages under the fraud count. The propriety of a third count, alleging a violation of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 73, par. 613 et seq.), is not at issue here.

In the trial court the defendants who had sold the coverage to the plaintiffs moved to dismiss all three counts for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs had also named as defendants a number of insurance companies from whom they had not purchased underinsured-motorist coverage. These defendants--Allied American Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Comet Casualty Company, Heritage Insurance Group, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Merit Insurance Company, Prestige Casualty Company, Royal Insurance Company, and Safeway Insurance Company--moved to dismiss the action for lack of standing. Without expressing the reasons for his decision, the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice; accordingly, he did not decide the plaintiffs' separate motion for certification of plaintiff and defendant classes.

On appeal, the appellate court held that the complaint stated causes of action for fraud and deceptive trade practices against those defendants who had sold the coverage to the plaintiffs. The court also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an action against insurance companies that had not sold them the coverage. The court believed that certification of plaintiff and defendant[108 Ill.2d 248] classes had properly been held in abeyance. 126 Ill.App.3d 401, 8 Ill.Dec. 349, 466 N.E.2d 1151.

A petition for leave to appeal (94 Ill.2d R. 315(a)) was filed by the plaintiffs, who, in cause No. 60773, contended that the appellate court erred in holding that they did not have standing to sue the defendants from whom they had not purchased the coverage. Petitions for leave to appeal were also filed by several of the defendant insurance companies who, in cause Nos. 60670 and 60777, contended that the appellate court erred in finding that causes of action were stated under the fraud and deceptive-practices counts. We allowed the petitions and, on our own motion, consolidated the appeals for oral argument and disposition.

At the time in question, insurance companies in Illinois were required to offer underinsured-motorist coverage in addition to uninsured-motorist coverage. (See Ill.Rev.Stat., 1980 Supp., ch. 73, par. 755a-2.) Section 143a-2(3) of the Illinois Insurance Code (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1980 Supp., ch. 73, par. 755a-2(3)) defined "underinsured motor vehicle" as one "for which the sum of the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability insurance policies or under bonds or other security required to be maintained under Illinois law applicable to the driver or to the person or organization legally responsible for such vehicle and applicable to the vehicle, is less than the limits for underinsured coverage provided the insured as defined in the policy at the time of the accident." That section further provided: "The limits of liability for an insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage shall be the limits of such coverage, less those amounts actually recovered under the applicable bodily injury insurance policies, bonds or other security maintained on the underinsured motor vehicle." (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1980 Supp., ch. 73, par. 755a-2(3).) Effective March 1, 1980, the minimum bodily-injury coverage in [108 Ill.2d 249] Illinois had been raised to 15/30. (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1980 Supp., ch. 95 1/2, pars. 7-203, 7-317(b)(3).) Because the minimum limits for underinsured-motorist coverage would not exceed the minimum insurance carried by an Illinois resident, the plaintiffs argue that they could never collect on 15/30 underinsured-motorist coverage following an accident in Illinois with an Illinois resident. They also contend that the insurance would not pay in any other circumstance. Although the plaintiffs also argue before this court that if the coverage did have value, it was misrepresented, the complaint alleged only that the coverage was worthless, and we shall proceed on that basis.

A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss if the facts alleged state a cause

Page 1266

[91 Ill.Dec. 631] of action (People ex rel. Fahner v. Carriage Way West, Inc. (1981), 88 Ill.2d 300, 308, 58 Ill.Dec. 754, 430 N.E.2d 1005), and the complaint "reasonably informs the opposite party of the nature of...