2022 IL App (1st) 210491
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- On July 1, 2017 Tate’s car was struck by a City of Chicago ambulance driven by a city employee. Tate alleged bodily injuries.
- Tate sued the City (case no. 18 L 5795); the City moved for summary judgment based on governmental tort immunity under the Tort Immunity Act, and the court granted summary judgment for the City, dismissing Tate’s suit.
- Tate then made an uninsured-motorist (UM) claim under his Unique Insurance Co. policy and demanded arbitration; Unique filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking (1) a declaration that the City ambulance was not an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy and (2) that Tate was collaterally estopped by the prior dismissal.
- The policy’s UM provision defined “uninsured motor vehicle” to exclude vehicles owned or operated by a self-insurer and vehicles owned by any governmental unit or agency; it required arbitration to determine damages if coverage applied.
- The trial court stayed arbitration and granted summary judgment to Unique, holding the ambulance was not an uninsured motor vehicle (it was governmental and self-insured) and the policy definition did not violate public policy; Tate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Unique) | Defendant's Argument (Tate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City ambulance is an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy | Policy expressly excludes self-insurers and governmental vehicles; City was self‑insured and a governmental unit, so no coverage | The court should find coverage because the City’s immunity effectively left Tate without recourse and thus functionally uninsured | Held: No. Ambulance excluded by plain policy language; City was a self‑insurer and governmental unit, so UM coverage does not apply |
| Whether the policy’s exclusion violates public policy / §143a (mandatory UM statute) | The exclusion is permissible; self‑insurance satisfies financial responsibility and legislature has not required expanding §143a to cover immune governmental tortfeasors | The exclusion is unduly restrictive and conflicts with §143a’s purpose to place insureds in same position as if tortfeasor were minimally insured; cites Franey | Held: No public-policy conflict. Excluding self‑insured governmental entities does not undermine §143a because self‑insurance is not the same as an uninsured driver |
| Whether Tate may assert underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage as alternative | Unique: Tate forfeited any UIM argument by failing to raise it below and never claiming UIM coverage | Tate: (raised on appeal) ambulance was effectively underinsured because judgment-preclusive immunity left him uncompensated | Held: Forfeited. Appellant did not raise UIM coverage in the trial court, so argument not considered on appeal |
| Whether collateral estoppel from the City’s summary judgment bars Tate’s claim against Unique | Unique sought a declaration that the prior judgment collaterally estopped Tate from claiming he is legally entitled to recover from the City | Tate argued the City judgment addressed immunity only and wasn’t a merits judgment on entitlement | Held: Court did not reach collateral-estoppel issue because it resolved coverage (no UM). Trial court had found collateral estoppel, but appellate opinion affirms on coverage grounds alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (summary-judgment and insurance-contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Erie Ins. Exch. v. Triana, 398 Ill. App. 3d 365 (insurer-policy construction principles; give terms plain meaning when unambiguous)
- Luechtefeld v. Allstate Ins. Co., 167 Ill. 2d 148 (§143a requires UM coverage be provided in liability policies)
- Hoglund v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 148 Ill. 2d 272 (purpose of UM is to place insured in position as if tortfeasor were minimally insured)
- Pellegrini v. Jankoveck, 245 Ill. App. 3d 35 (policy definitions that unduly restrict statutory UM coverage are invalid)
- Smiley v. Estate of Toney, 44 Ill. 2d 127 (statutory UM coverage is mandatory and cannot be whittled away)
- Franey v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 5 Ill. App. 3d 1040 (policy exclusion for governmental vehicles held unduly restrictive where driver was uninsured)
- In re Stephen K., 373 Ill. App. 3d 7 (party estopped from taking appellate position inconsistent with its trial-court position)