delivered the opinion of the court:
Plаintiff, Zulfiquar Ebrahim, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against defendant Chеcker Taxi Co. and Calumet Insurance Co. On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in holding defendant was not required to provide plaintiff with uninsured mоtorist coverage.
We affirm.
According to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff leasеd a taxi from defendant. The following language was included in the leasing agreеment:
“Lessor, although not responsible for Lessee’s operation of thе Taxicab or damages or injuries resulting therefrom, provides public liability and property damage insurance (or equivalent indemnity) covering Lessor and Lessee, in the limits and of the types prescribed by ordinances of the City of Chicago and lawsof the State of Illinois.”
Furthermore, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on September 20, 1982, he was involved in an accident with the driver of a “hit and run” vehicle. Plaintiff submitted a сlaim with Calumet Insurance Co., which denied coverage. Defendant filed an аffidavit stating it has a surety bond for $50,000 on file with the city of Chicago.
The Insurance Code of Illinois provides in pertinent part:
“Sec. 143a. (1) On or after July 1, 1963, no policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death sufferеd by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall be renewed or delivered or issued for delivery in this State with respect to any motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this State unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental therеto, *** persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover dаmages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles and hit-and-run mоtor vehicles ***.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 73, par. 755a(l).)
The Illinois Motor Vehicle Code prоvides that a common carrier provide “proof of financial responsibility” as an alternative to a policy of insurance. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95^2, pаr. 8—101.) The filing of a surety bond satisfies the required proof of financial responsibility. (Chicago Municipal Code sec. 28—12 (1983).) The issuance of the bond as specified in defendant’s affidavit satisfies the statutory requirement for a bond. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 95½, pаr. 8—104—1.
In Hill v. Catholic Charities (1983),
The contract between the parties specifies that defendant is not “responsible for Lessee’s operation of the Taxicab or damages or injuries resulting therefrom ***.” Therefore, defendаnt is disclaiming the role of plaintiff’s insurer. Rather, defendant assumes coverage only “in the limits and of the types prescribed by ordinances of the City of Chicago and the laws of the State of Illinois.”
In interpreting a contract, the court will seek a reasonable interpretation based on the language of the contract. (Tatar v. Maxon Construction
In the case at bar, we conclude that the language of the contract indicates defendant was trying to limit its liability to the least aсceptable under the applicable provisions of the laws of Illinоis and the code of Chicago. We also believe it is reasonable tо assume defendant was limiting its liability to that required of a common carrier and not to the liability required of an insurance company. Furthermore, if the partiеs had intended to include uninsured motorist coverage in the lease, that provision could have been easily included in the contract.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.
BUCKLEY, P.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.