Hess v. The Estate of Klamm
144 N.E.3d 1
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- April 17, 2015: auto collision involving TJay Klamm driving a 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt; two passengers killed, one child seriously injured.
- Meridian issued a multi-vehicle auto policy listing four vehicles across declaration pages with bodily injury limits of $100,000 per person / $300,000 per accident shown on the declarations pages twice (once with autos 1–3; once with auto 4).
- Policy contains an antistacking clause limiting liability to the limit shown on the declarations page and stating that the limit is the most Meridian will pay regardless of number of vehicles shown.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that the bodily injury limits be stacked across the covered automobiles to yield $400,000 per person / $1.2 million per accident.
- Meridian counterclaimed and moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the policy unambiguously prohibits stacking; trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and ordered four-fold stacking.
- Appellate court modified: found the declarations formatting created an ambiguity but only warranted two-fold stacking, awarding $200,000 per person / $600,000 per accident, and rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on post-accident amendment pages to reach four-fold stacking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy’s antistacking clause is ambiguous given the declarations pages listing BI limits multiple times | Declarations list the BI limit under each vehicle; ambiguity resolves against insurer, permits stacking across all four vehicles | Antistacking clause and PART A limit language unambiguously cap liability at the single declarations limit (no stacking) | Ambiguity found because the same BI limits appear twice on the declarations pages; construing ambiguity for insureds, limits stacked twice (not four times) |
| Whether post-accident “amendments to the declarations” in the certified policy permit additional stacking to reach four-fold limits | Plaintiffs: certified copy includes amendments; therefore declarations show four listings supporting four-fold stacking | Meridian: the amendments were post-accident and inapplicable to the date of loss; cannot be used to expand coverage | Court rejected use of post-accident amendment pages to increase stacking; those pages were inapplicable and do not alter the two-fold result |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruder v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 156 Ill. 2d 179 (Ill. 1993) (antistacking clause interpreted with declarations; multiple listings on declarations can create ambiguity)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11 (Ill. 2005) (same antistacking language; declarations listing liability once supported non-stacking; noted Bruder dicta about multiple listings)
- Profitt v. OneBeacon Ins., 363 Ill. App. 3d 959 (Ill. App. 2006) (extra declarations or endorsement pages that are inapplicable do not create ambiguity)
- Johnson v. Davis, 377 Ill. App. 3d 602 (Ill. App. 2007) (found ambiguity where declarations listed limits separately for each vehicle and ordered stacking)