State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore
147 N.E.3d 104
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Oct. 16, 2013, Kent Elmore was unloading corn from his father Ardith Sheldon Elmore’s 2002 International grain truck when he stepped onto an auger hopper; the auger’s protective shield was removed and his foot was caught in rotating blades, causing an above‑knee amputation.
- The auger was powered by a tractor PTO; it was not self‑propelled and was not physically attached to the insured truck. Sheldon owned the truck and was insured by State Farm under a commercial auto policy.
- State Farm filed a declaratory‑judgment action asserting a commercial endorsement exclusion (section b.(4)(c)) excluded coverage for injuries “resulting from the movement of property by means of a mechanical device, other than a hand truck, that is not attached to the vehicle.”
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled for State Farm, finding the auger was a “mechanical device” and the exclusion unambiguous and enforceable.
- The appellate majority reversed: it held the term “mechanical device” in the endorsement was undefined, overly broad, and ambiguous in the farming/unloading context and must be construed against the insurer; the court entered summary judgment for Kent. The dissent would have enforced the exclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the endorsement’s “mechanical device” exclusion unambiguously bars coverage for injuries from the auger | The auger plainly fits the ordinary meaning of “mechanical device”; exclusion is clear and applies to devices not attached to the insured vehicle | The term is undefined, overly broad and vague in the context of farm unloading; average insured could not tell what devices are excluded | Majority: Term is ambiguous as applied here; ambiguities construed against insurer; summary judgment entered for defendant. Dissent: exclusion clear and applies. |
| Whether the exclusion violates public policy or Illinois mandatory motor‑vehicle liability laws (omnibus coverage) | Exclusion is a reasonable, permissible contractual limitation; Progressive Universal allows exclusions that do not discriminate between insured and permissive users | Exclusion undermines the purpose of mandatory liability coverage for permissive users (argued) | Majority: Did not need to decide—resolved in defendant’s favor by construing ambiguity for coverage. Trial court had addressed public‑policy point and upheld exclusion, but appellate majority reversed on ambiguity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Progressive Universal Insurance Co. of Illinois v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121 (2005) (Illinois law permits insurers to exclude certain risks from liability coverage so long as exclusions are reasonable)
- Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391 (2010) (construction of insurance contracts and coverage questions are legal issues appropriate for summary judgment)
- Central Illinois Light Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 213 Ill. 2d 141 (2004) (clear policy terms are given their plain, ordinary meaning)
- Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill. 2d 384 (1993) (policy construed as a whole considering type of insurance and risks undertaken)
- Founders Insurance Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill. 2d 424 (2010) (exclusions are interpreted liberally in favor of insured; insurer bears burden to show applicability)
- Dauthier v. Pointe Coupee Wood Treating, Inc., 560 So. 2d 556 (La. Ct. App. 1990) (forklift held a “mechanical device” within a business‑auto exclusion)
- Lindstrom v. Houzenga, 177 Ill. App. 3d 1 (1988) (describing auger as a mechanical device used to move grain)
- Allen v. Kewanee Machinery & Conveyor Co., 23 Ill. App. 3d 158 (1974) (describing auger as a device used in moving and lifting grain)