Hess v. Estate of Klamm
161 N.E.3d 183
Ill.2021Background:
- A 2015 collision caused multiple deaths and injuries; the at-fault driver (Klamm) was insured under a four-vehicle liability policy issued to his mother by Meridian (State Auto).
- The policy’s declarations are spread across two physical pages: Autos 1–3 on page 1 and Auto 4 on page 2; bodily-injury limits of $100,000 per person / $300,000 per accident appear on each page.
- The policy contains an antistacking clause stating the insurer’s maximum liability is the limit shown in the declarations and that this is the most the insurer will pay regardless of the number of insureds, claims, vehicles or premiums.
- Plaintiffs (estate representatives) sued, seeking a declaration that the policy is ambiguous and that liability limits for all covered vehicles should be aggregated (stacked).
- The trial court ordered four-times stacking ($400,000/$1.2M); the appellate court affirmed but ordered two-times stacking ($200,000/$600,000); the Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding the policy unambiguous and prohibiting stacking.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy is ambiguous such that liability limits may be stacked | The repeated listing of limits and per-vehicle premiums create ambiguity permitting aggregation | The antistacking clause plus declarations, read together, unambiguously limit liability to $100,000/$300,000 | Court: Policy unambiguous; no stacking |
| Whether listing the same limits twice (across two physical declaration pages) creates ambiguity | Two appearances of the limits reasonably suggest multiple limits (stacking) | The repeat is a pagination/restatement due to space, not separate per-vehicle limits | Court: Mere repetition across pages is not ambiguous; not evidence of intent to stack |
| Whether per-vehicle premium columns and the phrase "COVERAGE IS PROVIDED WHERE A PREMIUM IS SHOWN FOR THE COVERAGE" imply separate limits per vehicle | Separate premiums and that phrase mean each premium bought separate coverage that should be counted separately | That language only identifies which coverages apply to which autos and does not contradict the antistacking clause | Court: Statement does not conflict with antistacking clause; no ambiguity |
| Whether the explicit UM/UIM "TOTAL LIMIT FOR ALL VEHICLES" language implies liability limits should likewise be aggregated | The explicit UM/UIM total limit elsewhere shows drafter could have used similar language in liability section if aggregation was disclaimed | The difference shows UM/UIM was charged as a single premium, while liability was charged separately but without per-vehicle limits; absence of per-vehicle liability limits shows no intent to aggregate | Court: Difference does not create ambiguity; liability limits remain single $100k/$300k |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruder v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 156 Ill. 2d 179 (Holding that when a single liability limit appears on the declarations page, antistacking clause unambiguously precludes stacking)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (Reaffirming that declarations must be read with the antistacking clause and rejecting a per se rule for ambiguity)
- Grzeszczak v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 168 Ill. 2d 216 (Antistacking provisions are not contrary to public policy)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Eljer Mfg., Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 278 (Court will not strain to find ambiguity in a contract)
- Johnson v. Davis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 602 (Permitting stacking where limits were listed separately for each vehicle)