2014 IL App (3d) 130655
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Marilyn Bowers was injured by an underinsured motorist who drove into a convenience-store building where she was standing; the tortfeasor’s insurer paid $100,000.
- Marilyn and Robert Bowers held a General Casualty auto policy covering three vehicles, each showing $250,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) limits and a separate UIM premium on the declarations page.
- The UIM endorsement included an antistacking "Limit of Liability" clause stating the limit shown in the Declarations is the maximum payable "regardless of the number of ... Vehicles or premiums shown."
- Plaintiffs sued for a declaratory judgment that the three $250,000 UIM limits could be aggregated (stacked) to yield $750,000 per person; General Casualty argued the policy unambiguously prohibited stacking.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bowers, finding an ambiguity created by the declarations page listing separate UIM limits/premiums and the endorsement’s language; this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy allows stacking of UIM limits listed separately for each insured vehicle | Bowers: Declarations list three $250,000 UIM limits with separate premiums, creating an ambiguity and a reasonable expectation that each vehicle carries its own UIM limit that can be aggregated | General Casualty: Antistacking endorsement unambiguously ties recovery to the single "limit" shown in the Declarations and bars aggregation | Court: Ambiguity exists between declarations (multiple limits/premiums) and endorsement (singular antistacking limit); construed against insurer — stacking allowed |
| Whether the word "separately" in the coverage information defeats stacking | Bowers: "Separately" can reasonably be read to mean each vehicle has its own UIM limit (supports stacking) | General Casualty: "Separately" indicates coverages apply individually and thus precludes recovery under multiple limits for one loss | Court: "Separately" is ambiguous in context and does not remove the stacking ambiguity produced by separately listed limits and premiums; favors insured |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruder v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 156 Ill.2d 179 (1993) (noting listing separate premiums can create ambiguity about stacking when UIM limits appear multiple times)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill.2d 11 (2005) (antistacking clauses enforced when declarations list a single UIM limit despite separate premiums)
- Pekin Ins. Co. v. Estate of Goben, 303 Ill. App.3d 639 (1999) (allowed stacking where declarations listed UIM coverage separately for each vehicle)
- Yates v. Farmers Auto. Ins’n, 311 Ill. App.3d 797 (2000) (found declarations inconsistent with antistacking endorsement; allowed stacking)
- Pekin Ins. Co. v. Estate of Ritter, 322 Ill. App.3d 1004 (2001) (antistacking clause held unambiguous; distinguished by facts and declarations language)
- Allen v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 128 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 1997) (federal panel allowed stacking where declarations listed separate UIM limits/premiums)