Ullman v. Wolverine Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1969
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 68--34
• Citation: 105 Ill.App.2d 408,244 N.E.2d 827
• Parties: Phyllis J. ULLMAN, individually and as Executor of the Will of Maurice J. Ullman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOLVERINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 827

244 N.E.2d 827

105 Ill.App.2d 408

Phyllis J. ULLMAN, individually and as Executor of the Will of Maurice J. Ullman, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOLVERINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 68--34.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Feb. 6, 1969.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1969.

Reidy, Katz, McAndrews, Durkee & Telleen, Rock Island, for defendant-appellant.

Eagle & Eagle, Rock Island, for plaintiff-appellee.

STOUDER, Justice.

Plaintiff-Appellee, Phyllis Ullman, executor of the estate of Maurice Ullman, commenced this action for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County seeking a determination that a provision in an insurance policy issued by defendant-appellant, Wolverine Insurance Company, was void. The trial court by its judgment declared such provision void and the insurance company has appealed.

The facts are brief and undisputed. On January 23, 1967, Maurice Ullman sustained injuries and later died therefrom as a result of an automobile collision between his automobile and one operated and owned by an uninsured motorist. The deceased was at the time of the collision, an employee acting within the scope of his employment, and benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act in the amount of $14,000.00 were either paid or payable.

At the time of the collision there was in effect an automobile liability policy issued by the defendant, Wolverine in favor of the deceased. Such policy included uninsured motorist coverage with liability limited to $10,000.00 per person. With respect to the uninsured motorist coverage provision, the policy provided that its liability with respect thereto should be reduced by any amounts paid or payable under a Workmen's Compensation Act. It is the latter provision which is the source of this litigation.

Plaintiff, in her complaint for declaratory judgment, alleged that the provision permitting the deduction of workmen's compensation benefits was void because if given effect it would reduce the amount of coverage under the uninsured motorist coverage provisions to less than required by statute and hence was violative of the statute. The trial court agreed with plaintiff and declared the provision invalid from which judgment the defendant insurance company has appealed.

The sole question before us is whether the provision permitting the deduction of workmen's compensation benefits is void because it violated Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, Chap. 73, Sec. 755a. An examination of the Statute reveals no specific language either prohibiting or authorizing the deduction in question. It also appears that the question presented is one of first impression, our attention not having been called to any Illinois authorities dealing with the precise issue here involved.

We believe the meaning of the Statute must be determined from its purpose and intent. Consequently the provision in question may not be deemed valid merely because it is not prohibited and conversely it may not be deemed invalid merely because it is not authorized.

At this time there can be little doubt concerning the reason and necessity for legislative interest and concern in the financial aspects of motor vehicle ownership and operation. Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, Chap. 95 1/2, Sec. 7--200 et seq., commonly known as the Financial Responsibility Act, represents an effort by the legislature to encourage and promote the availability of financial resources to compensate persons injured as the result of the ownership or operation of motor vehicles. It adopted the requirement of liability insurance as one of the principal means of achieving such goal. The Financial Responsibility Act does not purport to include all of those circumstances wherein injury may result from the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle. To provide protection to some extent against uncovered hazards the insurance industry evolved the uninsured motorist protection. The legislature has encouraged and promoted the use of uninsured motorist coverage to the point where it is now mandatory in motor vehicle liability policies. Such legislation recognizes uninsured motorist coverage as a practical means for extending the availability of financial resources to compensate for injuries resulting from the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle. Uninsured motorist coverage is by its nature complementary to the requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act. It is not applicable directly to the owner or operator causing the injuries as is the Financial Responsibility Act. Indeed the minimum limits of uninsured motorist coverage required by Ill.Rev.Stat., 1965, Chap. 73, Sec. 755a, are described by reference to Ill.Rev.Stat., 1965, Chap. 95 1/2, Sec. 7--203.

We believe it follows from the foregoing observations, that the purpose of Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, Chap. 73, Sec. 755a, is to require that a minimum amount of insurance be available to an injured insured which would place such injured insured in substantially the same position he would have occupied had the offending party complied with the minimum requirements of the Financial Responsibility Act. (See Tindall v. Farmers Automobile Management Corp., 83 Ill.App.2d 165, 226 N.E.2d 397 and...