Goldstein v. Grinnell Select Insurance Company
58 N.E.3d 779
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Gilbert Gerth was killed when a pickup rear-ended his Snapper riding lawnmower; the tortfeasor carried $30,000 liability coverage.
- Gerth had two automobile policies: Hartford (UIM $100,000) and Grinnell (single UIM $1,000,000); plaintiff (executor) recovered $30,000 from tortfeasor and Hartford policy limits (net of setoff).
- Grinnell denied its UIM claim relying on an "owned-vehicle" exclusion: no UIM for bodily injury sustained while occupying any motor vehicle owned by the insured that is not insured for this coverage under the policy.
- Plaintiff sued for declaratory judgment arguing (1) the owned-vehicle exclusion is unenforceable as to underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage under Illinois law, and (2) a riding lawnmower is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the exclusion/statute.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Grinnell; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding the owned-vehicle exclusion applies to UIM coverage and a riding lawnmower qualifies as a motor vehicle under the Illinois Vehicle Code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an owned-vehicle exclusion in an auto policy is enforceable against UIM claims | The 1995 statutory amendment permitting an owned-vehicle exclusion applied only to uninsured-motorist coverage (not UIM); thus the exclusion is unenforceable for UIM and defeats UIM's remedial purpose | The 1995 amendment and statutory scheme do not justify a different result for UIM; uninsured and underinsured coverage are linked and the owned-vehicle exclusion should apply to UIM | The exclusion is enforceable for UIM; legislature’s treatment and the linkage between UM and UIM support applying the exclusion to UIM |
| Whether a riding lawnmower is a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the exclusion | A riding lawnmower is not a motor vehicle (analogous to bicycle/low-speed devices) and thus the exclusion should not apply | The Vehicle Code definition of "motor vehicle" includes self-propelled devices like riding lawnmowers and the statute’s explicit exclusions do not cover riding lawnmowers | A riding lawnmower is a motor vehicle under the Vehicle Code; the owned-vehicle exclusion applies when the insured occupied the lawnmower |
Key Cases Cited
- Sulser v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 147 Ill. 2d 548 (Ill. 1992) (UM and UIM statutes construed together; purpose is to place insured in same position as if tortfeasor had adequate insurance)
- Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Rosen, 242 Ill. 2d 48 (Ill. 2011) (courts defer to legislature on public policy and uphold freedom to contract absent clear statutory conflict)
- Squire v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 69 Ill. 2d 167 (Ill. 1977) (pre-1995 precedent invalidating owned-vehicle exclusion in UM context)
- Roberts v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 231 Ill. App. 3d 713 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (Vehicle Code definitions incorporated into Insurance Code; analysis of what constitutes a motor vehicle)
- Estate of Sinn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 288 Ill. App. 3d 193 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (discusses differing purposes of UM and UIM statutes; relied on by plaintiff but distinguished by court)