McKinney v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 16 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 87248.,87248. |
Citation | 243 Ill.Dec. 56,188 Ill.2d 493,722 N.E.2d 1125 |
Parties | Georjeania McKINNEY, Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Laura G. Postilion, Bernard R. Nevoral and Associates, Ltd., Chicago, for Georjeania McKinney.
Matthew S. Elvin, Ross & Hardies, Chicago, for Insurance Company of North America.
At issue in this appeal is whether a limitation of liability clause in an automobile insurance policy unambiguously limited all claims arising out of a person's death to a single per person limit. The circuit court of Cook County held that it did not and entered summary judgment for plaintiff, Georjeania McKinney. Finding the policy unambiguous, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment for plaintiff and entered summary judgment for defendant, Allstate Insurance Company. No. 1-98-0924 (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23). Plaintiff appeals, and we now affirm the appellate court.
On January 2, 1996, Rashaud McKinney was driving a vehicle in which his father, Gregory McKinney, and sister, Ashley McKinney, were passengers. The car left the road, and Gregory McKinney died as a result of the accident. Rashaud and Ashley survived the accident, but Ashley was injured.
Gregory was insured under a policy with Allstate. Pursuant to the policy's resident relative exclusion, Rashaud was considered an uninsured motorist. The policy provides liability limits for uninsured-motorist coverage of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. The limits of liability clauses in the policy provide as follows:
Georjeania McKinney, individually, as administratrix of Gregory's estate, and as mother and next friend of Ashley, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment. In the complaint, plaintiff sought a determination that the liability limits of the policy should be applied as follows: Gregory's estate had a Survival Act claim, subject to a $100,000 limit; Ashley had a claim for her own injuries, subject to a separate $100,000 limit; and Ashley and Georjeania each had separate claims pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act, subject to separate $100,000 limits. All of these claims would be subject to the aggregate $300,000 limit for the accident. Allstate answered the complaint, arguing that Ashley's claims for her own injuries were separate and distinct, but that all claims arising from the death of Gregory were subject to one $100,000 limit.
Plaintiff then filed a "motion to declare coverage" in which she asked the trial court to declare that Georjeania and Ashley could each seek up to $100,000 for their wrongful death claims and that Ashley could seek an additional $100,000 for her personal injuries. The aggregate $300,000 liability limit would apply to these claims. Allstate filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it had paid the $100,000 limit pursuant to the Survival Act claim and that its liability under the policy for claims arising out of Gregory's death had been extinguished. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's, finding that the policy was ambiguous and that the aggregate $300,000 limit applied to the wrongful death claims of Georjeania and Ashley and the personal injury claim of Ashley. Allstate appealed, and the appellate court reversed. The appellate court held that the policy unambiguously limited all claims arising from Gregory's death to a single $100,000 limit.
Plaintiff argues that the above interpretation is as reasonable as that advanced by Allstate, and that the policy is therefore ambiguous. Plaintiff further contends that she had a reasonable expectation of the above coverage.
Allstate argues that the policy is not ambiguous and provides in no uncertain terms that the $100,000 limit is the maximum that can be paid for all damages arising out of Gregory's death. Allstate further contends that plaintiff's interpretation would require the court to read additional language into the policy rather than to enforce the policy as written.
The construction of an insurance policy is a question of law subject to de novo review. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Villicana, 181 Ill.2d 436, 441, 230 Ill.Dec. 30, 692 N.E.2d 1196 (1998). Our primary objective in construing the language of a policy is to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in their agreement. American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill.2d 473, 479, 227 Ill.Dec. 149, 687 N.E.2d 72 (1997). If the terms of the policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning (Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill.2d 90, 108, 180 Ill.Dec. 691, 607 N.E.2d 1204 (1992)), but if the terms are susceptible to more than one meaning, they are considered ambiguous and will be construed strictly against the insurer who drafted the policy (Koloms, 177 Ill.2d at 479, 227 Ill. Dec. 149, 687 N.E.2d 72). Courts will not strain to find ambiguity in an insurance policy where none exists. United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Schnackenberg, 88 Ill.2d 1, 5, 57 Ill.Dec. 840, 429 N.E.2d 1203 (1981).
In Ravenswood Hospital v. Maryland Casualty Co., 280 Ill. 103, 117 N.E. 485 (1917), this court construed a similar limitation in a medical malpractice policy issued to a hospital. There, the limitation of liability clause provided, "damages on account of injuries to or the death of one person is limited to $5,000, and, subject to the same limit for each person, the company's total liability for such damages on account of injuries to or the death of any number of persons is limited to $10,000." Ravenswood Hospital, 280 Ill. at 107, 117 N.E. 485. This court concluded that, once $5,000 had been paid as indemnification to the hospital for the injuries suffered by Clara Appel, the insurance company did not have to further reimburse Appel's husband for loss of consortium damages arising out of Clara's injuries. This court explained that the language was plain and clear and specifically limited "appellant's liability to $5,000 for injury or death to one person, irrespective of the number of persons who may make claim to damages on account of the injury to such person." Ravenswood Hospital, 280 Ill. at 109, 117 N.E. 485.
Similarly, we agree with Allstate that the policy unambiguously provides that the $100,000 limit is applicable to all claims arising out...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Freyer
...that derivative claims were subject to the same each person limit as the survivorship claim. See McKinney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 188 Ill.2d 493, 243 Ill.Dec. 56, 722 N.E.2d 1125 (1999) ( “per person” limit of liability clause “clearly limited” all claims arising out of the decedent's death t......
-
Traveler's Ins. Co. v. Eljer Mfg., Inc.
...this court "will not strain to find ambiguity in an insurance policy where none exists." McKinney v. Allstate Insurance Co., 188 Ill.2d 493, 497, 243 Ill.Dec. 56, 722 N.E.2d 1125 (1999); see also Crum & Forster, 156 Ill.2d at 391, 189 Ill.Dec. 756, 620 N.E.2d 1073. The issue of construction......
-
Essex Ins. Co. v. RHO Chem. Co.
...will not strain to find ambiguity in an insurance policy where none exists.’ ” Id . (quoting McKinney v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 188 Ill.2d 493, 243 Ill.Dec. 56, 722 N.E.2d 1125, 1127 (1999) ).B. The Essex Insurance Policy's Exclusion Provision Is Unambiguous Defendants RHO and the Rolihs argue......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Freyer
...had concluded that derivative claims were subject to the same each person limit as the survivorship claim. See McKinney v. AllState Ins. Co., 722 N.E.2d 1125 (Ill. 1999) ("per person" limit of liability clause "clearly limited" all claims arising out of the decedent's death to a single per ......