2013 IL App (1st) 113664
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Emiljanowicz owned a 1995 Freightliner truck which he leased to SSTS for transporting freight under a contractor agreement.
- SSTS had operating rights, ICC registration, and policy to require mechanic inspections; it issued decals granting authority to operate the truck.
- The contract gave SSTS exclusive possession, control, and use of the truck and required Emiljanowicz to follow SSTS directions.
- On May 12, 2004, after signing the agreement and decals were issued, Emiljanowicz drove toward a mechanic and collided with Karawacki-Horowitz.
- Progressive insured Emiljanowicz; Occidental insured SSTS vehicles; Progressive sought coverage through a declaratory judgment; Occidental counterclaimed for no coverage.
- Occidental argued Emiljanowicz was not an insured or that the truck was not a covered auto; the trial court granted Progressive summary judgment; on appeal, the court affirmed Occidental’s coverage under Occidental and denied Progressive’s policy application.
- The court determined that Emiljanowicz was performing SSTS’s business and that the freightliner qualified as a covered auto under Occidental’s symbol 46, and that Progressive’s contingent liability endorsement applied to exclude coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emiljanowicz was an insured under Occidental’s policy | Occidental argues no insured status as vehicle not in SSTS’s business. | Occidental contends vehicle not exclusively in SSTS business may preclude coverage. | Emiljanowicz was an insured under Occidental. |
| Whether the freightliner was a covered auto under Occidental’s policy | Symbol 47 applies to leased autos; symbol 46 ambiguous; SSTS listed the truck as covered. | Truck is leased auto only under symbol 47; no post-start coverage unless listed. | Freightliner falls within symbol 46 as a covered auto acquired after policy began. |
| Whether Progressive’s policy applied to exclude coverage via the contingent liability endorsement | Endorsement excludes coverage when insured uses vehicle for others or on behalf of others. | Ambiguity or alternate inference that insured was picking up a friend, not operating for SSTS. | Progressive’s endorsement excludes coverage; Progressive does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Occidental Fire & Casualty Co. of North Carolina v. Padgett, 113 Ill. App. 3d 215 (1983) (exclusive possession and control for business use anchors coverage)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Frankart, 69 Ill. 2d 209 (1977) (driver operating for company while returning with empty trailer within course of business)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (1992) (ambiguous policy provisions construed against insurer)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group, 182 Ill. 2d 240 (1998) (general rule insurance follows the car; dealership context not controlling here)
- Prior Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Hagins, 258 Ill. App. 3d 683 (1994) (federal citations not controlling; supports contextual understanding)
- Konami (America), Inc. v. Hartford Insurance Co. of Illinois, 326 Ill. App. 3d 874 (2002) (policy construction via summary judgment standard)