Pritza v. Village of Lansing
940 N.E.2d 1164
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Pritza sues for underinsured motorist coverage under an IMLRMA policy to benefit the Village of Lansing.
- IMLRMA policy contains no uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage; Williams' owner policy settled for $20,000 and Cooper was defaulted for $250,000.
- Lansing is a municipality; under Illinois law, municipalities are exempt from certain safety and financial responsibility requirements when self-insuring.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory relief and later amended to seek reformation to include underinsured coverage; original uninsured claim had been dismissed as the vehicle was insured.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding IMLRMA is not insurance and Lansing is self-insured; appeal followed with partial jurisdiction issues about an earlier judgment.
- Appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the amended claim and dismissed the Oct. 2, 2008 judgment for lack of timely appeal; held self-insurers are not insurers and not subject to 143a-2 or 155.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiff abandon uninsured motorist claim after amendment? | Pritza maintained the amended complaint preserved the uninsured claim in alternative form. | Amendment complete in itself abandoned prior uninsured motorist allegations. | Abandoned; prior uninsured claim waived. |
| Does 143a-2 apply to Lansing/IMLRMA given self-insurance and municipal exemption? | IMLRMA provides insurance-like coverage; 143a-2 should apply. | IMLRMA is not insurance; Lansing is exempt as a municipality and self-insured. | 143a-2 does not apply. |
| Is IMLRMA an insurance policy or a self-insurance arrangement? | IMLRMA functions as insurance; should owe underinsured coverage. | Self-insurance pool; not an insurer and not a policy. | IMLRMA is self-insurance; not an insurer or a policy; no underinsured obligation. |
| Are underinsured coverage and section 155 damages available against Lansing/IMLRMA? | Failure to provide underinsured coverage and vexatious withholding qualify under 155. | Self-insurers are not insurers; 155 does not apply; no liability for benefits owed. | Section 155 relief not applicable; no benefits owed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antiporek v. Village of Hillside, 114 Ill.2d 246 (1986) (self-insurance pool does not waive tort immunity; IRMA-like pools are non-insurers)
- Beck v. Budget Rent-A-Car, 283 Ill.App.3d 541 (1996) (self-insurers not obligated to provide underinsured motorist coverage)
- Hill v. Catholic Charities, 118 Ill.App.3d 488 (1983) (uninsured motorist coverage does not apply to self-insurers)
- Yaccino v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 346 Ill.App.3d 431 (2004) (self-insurance pools distinguished; Antiporek applied to coverage questions)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill.2d 90 (1992) (summary judgment standard; insurance policy construction is a question of law)
- Pfaff v. Chrysler Corp., 155 Ill.2d 35 (1994) (waiver/abandonment principles for pleadings and amendments)