2019 IL App (4th) 190080
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Jeffrey Oehler, a spastic quadriplegic who required constant assistance, fell from his wheelchair and later died while two Oehler’s Home Care (OHC) employees were preparing to transfer him into his specially equipped van after shopping.
- The underlying complaint alleged OHC employees negligently failed to monitor, restrain, and care for Jeffrey during preparation for transport into the van (wrongful death and survival claims).
- Country Mutual (insurer) filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that its business owners policy had no duty to defend, invoking an auto exclusion ("arising out of the use of any auto," including loading/unloading) and a professional-services exclusion (health/nursing services).
- Depositions showed one employee entered the van to arrange pillows while another stood by Jeffrey; both had their backs to him when he fell; employees had on‑the‑job training and, in one case, CNA credentials.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding the exclusions did not apply. The appellate court reversed, holding the accident arose out of the use of the van and the auto exclusion barred coverage; it did not reach the professional‑services exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Country Mutual) | Defendant's Argument (Estate/OHC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the auto‑exclusion bars coverage ("use" of an auto, incl. loading/unloading) | The injury occurred while employees were preparing/transferring Jeffrey into the van (loading/unloading), so it arose out of the use of the auto and is excluded | The negligence was failure to secure/monitor Jeffrey in his wheelchair—a nonvehicular act that could have occurred anywhere; the van was mere situs; exclusion should be narrowly read | Auto exclusion applies; accident arose from preparing/transferring into vehicle, so insurer has no duty to defend (reversed trial court) |
| Whether the professional‑services exclusion bars coverage | The care of a spastic quadriplegic required specialized nursing/medical knowledge; alleged negligence arose from rendering those services, so exclusion applies | Employees were not providing medical services at the moment and were performing routine transfers; exclusion thus inapplicable | Not decided — appellate court resolved case on auto exclusion and declined to reach this alternative argument |
| Whether "loading/unloading" requires handling property (so it cannot apply to a person) | Loading/unloading of pillows and other items in the van supports exclusion; activities were part of vehicle use | Policy defines loading/unloading as handling property and a person is not property, so exclusion’s loading/unloading language should not apply | Court did not decide that property‑handling issue; found auto exclusion applicable on broader ground (preparing/transferring a person is use of vehicle) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391 (Illinois 2010) ("use" of an automobile is broader than driving and includes riding/other employments of vehicle)
- Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Heaven’s Little Hands Day Care, 343 Ill. App. 3d 309 (1st Dist. 2003) (distinguished; left‑in‑vehicle heatstroke case treating vehicle as mere situs)
- Aryainejad v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 278 Ill. App. 3d 1049 (1996) (adopts inquiry whether injury is a natural/foreseeable incident of vehicle use)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pfiel, 304 Ill. App. 3d 831 (1999) (injury must have causal nexus to normal use of vehicle; attenuated uses may fall outside coverage)
- Marzell v. Charlyn Enterprises, LLC, 215 So. 3d 405 (La. Ct. App. 2017) (loading/transfer of disabled person into van flows from vehicle use; auto exclusion applied)
- Constitutional Cas. Co. v. Soder, 281 Ill. App. 3d 657 (1996) (discusses meaning of "use" of an automobile)
- Oakley Transport, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 271 Ill. App. 3d 716 (1995) (explains commercial liability policies exclude auto risks to avoid duplicative coverage)
- Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Transportation Joint Agreement, 194 Ill. 2d 96 (2000) (claims that are mere rephrasings of injuries arising from vehicle use are excluded)