Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Haight
697 F.3d 582
7th Cir.2012Background
- Shawn Haight purchased a policy with UIM coverage for the named insured and family members.
- Nicole Haight, Nicole, was injured as a passenger in Day's car, which was not listed on Shawn Haight's policy.
- Nicole sought UIM coverage under her father's Grinnell Mutual policy after Day's liability could not fully compensate her.
- The Illinois Underinsured Motorists Coverage Endorsement in the Grinnell policy provides UIM to the insured and family members, with specific definitions for insureds.
- The named insured is an individual (Shawn Haight), Nicole is a family member who resided in Shawn Haight's household, and Illinois law treats family members as insured under the UIM endorsement without requiring occupancy in a covered auto.
- Grinnell challenged Nicole's entitlement on the basis that she was not occupying a covered auto at the time of the accident, prompting litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nicole is an insured under the UIM endorsement without occupying a covered auto | Haight contends B.1.a covers named insured and family members regardless of occupancy. | Grinnell argues occupancy of a covered auto is required for Nicole to qualify. | Nicole is entitled to UIM coverage; no occupancy of a covered auto is required for family members. |
| Interpretation of B.1.a versus B.1.b in the UIM endorsement | Haight relies on B.1.a to include family members as insureds. | Grinnell argues B.1.b and occupancy language limit coverage. | Text of the endorsement supports coverage for named insured and family members under B.1.a without occupancy requirement. |
| Whether federal jurisdiction existed to entertain the appeal | Grinnell asserted jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Grinnell sought amendment to meet amount in controversy. | Grinnell contends sufficient amount in controversy and proper jurisdiction exist. | Court concluded jurisdiction existed after amendment and proceeded to merits. |
| Whether the case should be decided under Illinois law interpreting UIM policy terms | Illinois law should be applied to interpret the policy as a portable, personal coverage following the insured. | Grinnell cites policy structure and occupancy provisions to limit coverage. | Illinois law applies; policy language grants UIM coverage to Nicole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reisig v. Allstate Ins. Co., 645 N.W.2d 544 (Neb. 2002) (supports broad/occupancy-independent UIM coverage for insureds)
- Stoddard v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 643 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (interprets UIM/insured definition consistent with Nicole's reading)
- Bushey v. N. Assurance Co. of Am., 766 A.2d 598 (Md. 2001) (recognizes UIM coverage extends to insureds beyond vehicle occupancy)
- Lisowski v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co., 759 N.W.2d 754 (Wis. 2009) (dissent on occupancy requirement; influence considered)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (allowing jurisdictional amendment to cure defective allegations)