810 F.3d 446
7th Cir.2015Background
- Nationwide issued a four-vehicle automobile policy with separate UM/UIM limits ($100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident) and separate declarations/prices for each vehicle.
- Dugan and wife settled with the other driver’s insurer for the policy limits ($100,000) and loss of consortium, then sought additional UM/UIM recovery from Nationwide.
- Nationwide denied stacked recovery, arguing anti-stacking provisions and a single-setoff against multiple limits.
- Dugans argued the anti-stacking clause is ambiguous when read with the declarations page listing multiple vehicle limits and premiums.
- The district court granted Nationwide summary judgment, treating each vehicle as a separate policy but applying a $100,000 setoff four times, and the court denied stacking; the case proceeded on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the policy prohibit stacking of UM/UIM coverage? | Dugans contend the anti-stacking clause is ambiguous with the declarations page, allowing stacking. | Nationwide argues the anti-stacking clause unambiguously bars stacking. | Unambiguous anti-stacking provision; does not allow stacking. |
| What effect does the Other Insurance provision have on stacking? | Dugans argue it is intra-policy ambiguous and may allow stacking. | Nationwide contends Other Insurance unambiguously limits recovery to the highest single-vehicle limit. | Other Insurance unambiguously limits recovery to the highest applicable limit per vehicle; stacking barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruder v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., 620 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. 1993) (anti-stacking language tied to declarations page may be ambiguous when multiple vehicles are listed)
- Yates v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 724 N.E.2d 1042 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (declarations listing multiple limits can create ambiguity)
- Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 823 N.E.2d 561 (Ill. 2005) (endorses Bruder dicta and ambiguity in anti-stacking with multiple declarations)
- Grinnell Select Ins. Co. v. Baker, 362 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2004) (distinguishable on Declarations page listing limits only once; not controlling here)
- McElmeel v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 851 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (upheld intra-policy Other Insurance provision as resolving ambiguity created by multiple vehicles)
- Willison v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 690 N.E.2d 1073 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (Other Insurance provision bars stacking; applies to multiple vehicle single-carrier contexts)
- Kaufmann v. Econ Fire & Cas. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1150 (Ill. 1979) (purpose of Other Insurance provisions includes proration and anti-stacking)