Insurance Law

Plaintiff was injured in auto accident involving an underinsured motorist. He settled with owner of underinsured vehicle for full limits of that owner's liability policy, and also received workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff's own insurance policy provided $500,000 of uninsured motorist coverage. Policy stated that when an accident involves an uninsured vehicle, damages payable will be reduced by all amounts paid by or on behalf of the owner or operator of the uninsured auto or anyone else responsible, including all sums paid under "this or any other auto insurance policy." Policy explicitly includes underinsured vehicles in its definition of uninsured vehicles. The legislature only intended for underinsured motorist coverage to take care of the difference between a claim and the amount available from the underinsured motorist. Insurer paid Plaintiff the amount which filled the gap between his arbitration award and the amounts he received from the underinsured motorist and his workers' compensation payments. As no set of facts can be proved that would entitle Plaintiff to a recovery, court properly granted insurer's section 2-615 motion to dismiss. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring.)

Insured filed small-claims suit against insurer based on its denial of coverage, and insurer filed counterclaim; then insurer also filed declaratory judgment action seeking declaration that it did not owe insured a duty to defend as to a suit filed against her by other driver. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider insured's appeal. The order from which insured appeals did not dispose of all claims against all parties, and thus a finding under Rule 304(a) was required to render the order appealable. Because no such order was entered, appeal is dismissed.(LAMPKIN and BURKE, concurring.) 

Insurer denied coverage for Plaintiff's claim for water in her basement and the 2nd-floor bathroom of her property. Court granted insurer's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for breach of insurance contract and for vexatiously and unreasonable denial of her claim in violation of Section 155 of Insurance Code. Pleadings unambiguously showed that a bona fide dispute existed as to coverage, including as to whether the property was unoccupied at the time of loss. Plaintiff provided inconsistent information on that issue and as to whether the water supply had been turned off. Insurer did not act vexatiously and unreasonably in denying coverage.(PUCINSKI and COGHLAN, concurring.)

Head-on collision in 2015 in Georgia involving a Hertz rental car rented by Defendant. Two passengers in that vehicle died as a result of accident, and the other passenger. sustained severe injuries. At the time of the accident, Defendant owned a Chevrolet Suburban that they insured with State Farm. Court erred in entering summary judgment hold that State Farm auto policy provided coverage for passengers because rental car qualified as a "temporary substitute car" under policy. Whether rental car qualified as a "temporary substitute car" depends on whether the Suburban was "out of use" due to its "breakdown, repair, servicing, damage, or theft." Undisputed facts establish that Suburban was not "out of use" when accident occurred. Court should have entered summary judgment for State Farm. Unambiguous policy language establishes intent that coverage applied to only 1 operating vehicle at a time. (WELCH and MOORE, concurring.)

Plaintiff sued Defendant for failing to procure an insurance policy that protected it against claims later raised in a federal class action suit against it. Court properly dismissed Plaintiff's suit as untimely. Plaintiff's cause of action accrued when it received the policy in question, and it failed to file suit within 2 years thereafter, which is that statute of limitations for causes of action against insurance producers. (LAMPKIN and REYES, concurring.)