Hall v. Gamble Alden Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75--289,75--289
• Citation: 34 Ill.App.3d 837,341 N.E.2d 69
• Parties: Norman G. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMBLE ALDEN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 69

341 N.E.2d 69

34 Ill.App.3d 837

Norman G. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAMBLE ALDEN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 75--289.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

Dec. 23, 1975.

Robert L. Douglas, Robinson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Mark R. Weber, Cox, Phillips, Weber & Weber, Robinson, for defendant-appellee.

KARNS, Justice.

Plaintiff-appellant, Norman G. Hall, brought suit for declaratory judgment alleging that health and accident insurance provided by a policy of insurance issued to him by the defendant-appellee, Gamble Alden Life Insurance Company, afforded benefits because of injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident. The Circuit Court of Crawford County granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff appeals.

Since this appeal arose from a motion to dismiss, the facts pleaded by the complaint are taken as true in determining the sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint alleged the following:

Appellant is the insured under a health and accident policy issued by the defendant on February 22, 1972. He was injured in an automobile accident on January 22, 1974, while the policy was in force. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was operating a half-ton pick-up truck as a private passenger automobile. The health and accident policy, on its third page, in clear print and under the bold-faced caption of 'ACCIDENTS COVERED' states the following:

AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS

Any accident occurring while the Insured is actually riding in or driving any private passenger automobile. As used in this policy, automobile means a land vehicle of the type commonly and ordinarily known and referred to as an 'automobile,' and a private passenger automobile means a private automobile of the private passenger design designed primarily for transporting persons.

The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether a half-ton pick-up truck used as a private passenger vehicle is a 'private passenger automobile' under the instant insurance contract, or, stated otherwise, whether the insured's use of the vehicle is relevant to or determinative of the classification of a vehicle as an automobile covered by the policy.

At the outset it is appropriate to note what is not presented in this appeal. Plaintiff does not argue that he reasonably expected that a half-ton pick-up was a private passenger automobile; or that the insurer waived or should be estopped from claiming that a half-ton pick-up truck is not a private passenger automobile, or that the definition of 'private passenger automobile' is ambiguous in any respect. The only argument advanced by plaintiff is that a half-ton pick-up truck is an 'automobile' within the coverage provisions of the policy when used for private transportation purposes.

This court has rejected the view that the insured's use of a pick-up truck is relevant in determining whether the vehicle is an 'automobile' under a health and accident insurance policy. Spence v Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 320 Ill.App. 149, 50 N.E.2d 128 (1943). Plaintiff urges us to abandon the Spence decision and adopt what he urges is the better rule, i.e., that the insured's use of a vehicle determines whether it is an 'automobile' under this insurance policy. He cites Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Bidwell, 192 Tenn. 627, 241 S.W.2d 595 (1951); and Detmer v. United Security Ins. Co., 309 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.App.1958), as supportive of his contention. However, in Bidwell, the court held that where the policy explicitly excluded motorcycles and aircraft, its provision that coverage was limited to accidents where the insured was killed 'while--riding in--a private passenger automobile of the pleasure car type' without any further definition was ambiguous. The court also ruled that evidence of the general usage of pick-up trucks in Tennessee was relevant in determining whether a pick-up truck was a 'private passenger automobile of the pleasure car type.' Similarly in Detmer, the insurance policy did not define 'private passenger automobile' and the court held that how the vehicle (a half-ton pick-up truck) was commonly used and how it was being used were competent and material matters in determining whether a half-ton pick-up truck was a 'private passenger automobile.' Thus Bidwell and Detmer, stand merely for the proposition that where the contract of insurance...