Insurance Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in action to determine whether car-insurance policy issued by plaintiff to defendant-insured provided any underinsured motorist coverage under circumstances where defendant received $100,000 settlement from other driver, and where plaintiff’s policy provided defendant with $100,000 in underinsured motorist coverage for each of four cars listed in policy. Although defendant paid separate underinsured motorist premiums for each car, defendant could not stack underinsured motorist coverage for said cars given language in “Other Insurance” provision that limited coverage to highest limit of any of four underinsured motorist provisions in policy. As such, defendant was not entitled to any underinsured motorist coverage, even though his injuries exceeded $100,000 settlement, since: (1) highest coverage for all four cars was $100,000; and (2) plaintiff was entitled to set off $100,000 settlement against any underinsured motorist obligation it had under policy.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in defendant-insured’s favor in action to determine whether plaintiff-insurance company properly treated certain premium adjustments/credits to parties’ workers compensation insurance policy, where record showed that defendant was entitled to substantial Illinois Contracting Classification Premium Adjustment Program (ICC) credit, and where plaintiff insisted that parties had orally agreed to how plaintiff would account for such credit by inflating different credit at time of policy’s inception. Parole-evidence rule precluded plaintiff from establishing existence of instant alleged oral agreement due to presence of integration clause in policy, and thus defendant was entitled to full ICC credit for three years of premiums at issue in lawsuit.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-insured’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking to require defendant-insurance company to reimburse plaintiff for hail damage to plaintiff’s roof, even though defendant took position that said hail damage was only “cosmetic,” and thus not covered under policy. Policy, which covered any physical loss or damage to roof, covered instant claim, even though damage to roof did not diminish functionality of roof. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying portion of plaintiff’s summary judgment seeking damages for alleged bad-faith in defendant's initial refusal to cover instant claim since defendant could have taken reasonable, although mistaken, belief that policy did not cover claims that did not diminish functionality of roof. Fact that defendant’s interpretation of its policy differed from published stance taken by American Association of Insurance Services did not require different result.