Barlow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
127 N.E.3d 754
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Oct. 17, 2014 Bennie Barlow, an employee of Enviro‑Tech, was injured while driving an Enviro‑Tech pickup insured by State Farm; the tortfeasor’s insurer paid $20,000 and Barlow’s damages exceeded that amount.
- Enviro‑Tech’s State Farm policy covered 16 vehicles; each declarations entry showed underinsured motorist (UIM) limits of $250,000 per person / $500,000 per accident and charged a separate premium for UIM for each vehicle.
- Barlow timely made a UIM claim against State Farm and sought to “stack” the 16 vehicle limits (aggregate $4,000,000); State Farm asserted only $250,000 was available and pointed to an antistacking clause in the policy body.
- The declarations page repeated the UIM limit 16 times (one per vehicle) and the policy’s body directed insureds to the declarations for limits but also contained language stating the UIM limits shown are the most the insurer will pay regardless of number of vehicles (the antistacking language).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Barlow, finding the policy ambiguous and allowing stacking; State Farm appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UIM limits may be stacked across 16 insured vehicles | Barlow: declarations list the $250,000 limit 16 times and Enviro‑Tech paid 16 premiums → reasonable to interpret as 16 x $250,000 aggregate | State Farm: policy contains a clear antistacking clause in the body; repeated limits on declarations do not create ambiguity | Court: ambiguity exists due to repeated limits on declarations combined with body language; construed for insured → stacking allowed (aggregate $4M) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill. 2d 384 (policy construction and de novo review)
- Bruder v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 156 Ill. 2d 179 (repeated declaration entries can create ambiguity favoring stacking)
- Grzeszczak v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 168 Ill. 2d 216 (antistacking clauses enforceable only if unambiguous)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (insurance contracts follow contract interpretation rules)
- Murphy v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 234 Ill. App. 3d 222 (ambiguity construed against insurer)
- Johnson v. Davis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 602 (repeated per‑vehicle limits and separate premiums support stacking)
- Yates v. Farmers Automobile Ins’n, 311 Ill. App. 3d 797 (conflict between declarations and policy body creates ambiguity)
- Progressive Premier Ins. Co. v. Cannon, 382 Ill. App. 3d 526 (definition and effect of stacking)