KATHRYN F. MORELOCK, Appellee, v. MILLERS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS, Appellant.
No. 43525
Supreme Court of Illinois
September 30, 1971
49 Ill. 2d 234
The defendant‘s third contention is that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea and in entering judgment “without any supporting evidence whatsoever.” But the record shows that the defendant‘s attorney stipulated to the State‘s Attorney‘s summarization of the facts. Such a stipulation is binding upon the defendant. See, e.g., People v. Woods (1961), 23 Ill.2d 471, 474.
The defendant‘s final contention is that his sentence was “unconstitutionally proportioned.” This claim is based upon the assertion that a co-defendant, “Coylee Harris, after pleading not guilty, was found guilty and sentenced by the court to from fourteen to twenty (14-20) years.” The defendant argues that the record does not justify this discrepancy. There is no factual basis for this contention, since it was stipulated that the deceased was shot by this defendant.
The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
RAY H. FREEARK, Jr. and ROBERT D. FRANCIS, both of Belleville, for appellant.
DICK H. MUDGE, Jr., of Edwardsville, for appellee.
The relevant facts were stipulated to by the parties in the circuit court. On August 14, 1965, the plaintiff was driving an automobile owned by her father, Claude Wedel, in an easterly direction on Interstate Highway No. 70, south of Madison, Illinois. The other occupants of the automobile were the plaintiff‘s sister, Phyllis Wedel, her parents, Claude and Ruth Wedel, and another couple. There was a head-on collision between the Wedel automobile and the uninsured automobile of Alfred M. Holley, who drove in a westerly direction in a lane for east-bound traffic. All of the occupants of the Wedel automobile were injured. Phyllis Wedel and the plaintiff were severely and permanently injured and each suffered damages in excess of $20,000. Each is legally entitled to recover such damages from Holley, the operator of the uninsured automobile. The plaintiff is the named insured in a policy issued by the defendant, and her father, Claude Wedel, is the named insured in another policy issued by the defendant. The policies are identical in coverage. Each policy limits the liability of the defendant under the uninsured motorist coverage to $20,000 for each occurrence. At the time of the proceeding in the circuit court the defendant had paid $5,525.83 under the policy it had issued to Claude Wedel and the court was informed that the remaining $14,474.17 of the $20,000 limit was available to be divided between Phyllis Wedel and the plaintiff. It was stipulated that the plaintiff‘s damages alone are in excess of the $14,474.17 which is undisbursed.
The statute requiring the inclusion of uninsured motorist coverage in automobile liability policies in part provided: “*** no policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership,
The “other insurance” provision in the policy issued to the plaintiff, which is relied on by the defendant and which the circuit court held excused the defendant from liability, stated:
“With respect to bodily injury to an insured while occupying an automobile not owned by the named insured, the insurance under the Uninsured Motorists Coverage shall apply only as excess insurance over any other similar insurance available to such insured and applicable to such automobile as primary insurance, and this insurance shall then apply only in the amount by which the limit of liability for this coverage exceeds the applicable limit of liability of such other insurance.”
The appellate court observed that under the intendment of the “other insurance” clause no liability of the defendant would arise, since other and similar insurance was available to the plaintiff and the limit of liability in her uninsured motorist clause did not exceed the applicable limit of liability under the uninsured motorist clause of her father‘s policy. An issue appearing, however, the appellate court correctly considered, was whether one situated as the plaintiff might recover under the uninsured motorist coverage on the ground that the “other insurance” provision offends the public policy embodied in the
Recently in Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. 48 Ill.2d 71, we considered this public policy argument, though we observed (p. 85) that the plaintiffs there were “probably not in a position to present the argument.” We concluded that the legislative intendment of uninsured motorist coverage requirement was satisfied if a policy of insurance in the minimum limits under the Financial Responsibility law, i.e., $10,000 per person and $20,000 per accident, were made available, though the amount of the policy might not be sufficient to satisfy all claims made. We noted that if the “other insurance” clauses were held to offend public policy the paradoxical result would be that a motorist such as the plaintiff here would benefit if any injuries he might sustain would be caused by an uninsured motorist rather than by a motorist who had complied with the Financial Responsibility Law, and this because of the opportunity which would be given to “stack“, or add the benefit of his own uninsured motorist coverage is that on the automobile of his host. This we judged was not within the legislative intention. We said in part (p. 86): “The question of public policy, it seems to us, is largely manufactured. Construing an insurance contract accurately and giving it the effect which its language clearly commands, is not ipso facto a breach of public policy merely because it disappoints the innocent victim of an uninsured motorist.” As we recognized in Putnam there are contrary decisions on this public policy question but we prefer the view that the legislature‘s intent in requiring uninsured motorists insurance is satisfied by coverage which assures that compensation is available, in the event of injury by an uninsured motorist, to at least the same extent compensation “is available for injury by a
Judging that the “other insurance” clause does not frustrate the legislative purpose and thereby violate public policy, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court for the Fifth District and affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County.
Appellate court reversed; circuit court affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
MR. JUSTICE WARD, dissenting:
I consider that the other “insurance” provision in the policy here frustrates a legislative intention appearing in the uninsured motorist statute and is offensive to public policy. See the dissent in Putnam v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 48 Ill.2d 71.
MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER joins in this dissent.