Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Crowley v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 2019 IL App (2d) 180752

Appellate Court 

Caption

BARBARA CROWLEY, Individually and as Special Administrator 

of the Estate of Robert T. Crowley, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF CHICAGO, LLC;

ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.; and THOMAS BRUEN,

Defendants (Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, DefendantAppellant).

District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-18-0752

Filed June 18, 2019

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of De Kalb County, No. 17-MR-305; 

the Hon. William P. Brady, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert, LLC, of Chicago 

(Brian A. O’Gallagher and Nicole M. Miller, of counsel), for 

appellant.

Peter C. Morse, of Morse Bolduc & Dinos, LLC, and Thomas Tuohy, 

of Tuohy Law Offices, both of Chicago, and Jack Slingerland, of 

Slingerland & Clark, P.C., of Sycamore, for appellee.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Birkett and Justice Hutchinson concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 This case concerns whether an exclusion in a supplemental insurance policy that Empire 

Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Empire) issued to John Bruen was unenforceable as a 

matter of public policy. The exclusion applied if the insured was under the influence of 

alcohol or drugs. The circuit court of De Kalb County determined that the intoxication 

exclusion was unenforceable and therefore entered summary judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff, Barbara Crowley. Empire appeals from the trial court’s order. We reverse. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 On June 12, 2015, John Bruen rented a 2015 Volkswagen Jetta from Enterprise. He 

purchased “full coverage” insurance, which included “Supplemental Liability Protection” 

(SLP or excess policy). The insurance was provided by Empire. The insurance policy 

provided coverage through a surety bond in the amount of $100,000, with the potential for an 

additional $900,000 of excess liability coverage. The SLP policy included an exclusion that 

the insurance did not apply to a loss where the insured was under the influence of alcohol or 

drugs. The rental agreement listed Thomas Bruen as an additional authorized driver of the 

rental car. 

¶ 4 On June 13, 2015, Thomas Bruen, while driving the rental car, was involved in a motor 

vehicle accident that killed Robert Crowley and injured his wife Barbara Crowley. Thomas 

Bruen had marijuana, cocaine, and opiates in his system at the time of the accident, and he 

was subsequently convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of drugs (625 ILCS 

5/11-501(d)(1)(C), (F) (West 2014)). 

¶ 5 On May 1, 2017, Barbara Crowley filed a personal-injury complaint against Thomas 

Bruen. She alleged that Thomas Bruen’s negligent operation of the rental car caused the 

accident and the resulting injuries to her and her late husband. 

¶ 6 On September 29, 2017, Barbara Crowley filed a complaint against Enterprise Leasing 

Company of Chicago, LLC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (Enterprise defendants), as well as 

Empire, seeking a declaration that the Empire excess policy provided coverage for the claims 

that she had asserted against Thomas Bruen in the underlying case. 

¶ 7 On January 16, 2018, Crowley filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings against 

Empire. She argued that Empire was obligated to provide coverage based on its insurance 

contract with John Bruen. She asserted that the intoxication exclusion in the Empire policy 

was void because it was contrary to Illinois public policy. 

¶ 8 On February 23, 2018, Empire filed a motion for summary judgment on Crowley’s 

action. Empire argued that, based on the language of the insurance contract, Thomas Bruen 

was not entitled to coverage because he was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Empire 

insisted that the insurance contract was neither ambiguous nor against public policy. 
- 3 - 

¶ 9 On July 18, 2018, the trial court denied Empire’s motion for summary judgment and 

indicated that it would treat Crowley’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for 

summary judgment. 

¶ 10 On August 15, 2018, the trial court granted Crowley’s motion for summary judgment. 

Relying on Hertz Corp. v. Garrott, 238 Ill. App. 3d 231 (1992), the trial court found that the 

intoxication exclusion in Empire’s SLP policy was unenforceable as against public policy 

and that the Empire policy provided an additional $900,000 of excess coverage. The trial 

court also granted Crowley’s motion to nonsuit the Enterprise defendants and found that its 

order resolved all matters in controversy between the parties. Empire thereafter filed a timely 

notice of appeal. 

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 12 The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to 

Crowley. Appellate review of a summary judgment ruling is de novo. AUI Construction 

Group, LLC v. Vaessen, 2016 IL App (2d) 160009, ¶ 16. Summary judgment is appropriate 

where “the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, 

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is 

entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2016). The 

interpretation of an insurance policy and the coverage provided are questions of law that are 

appropriate for resolution through summary judgment. Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. 

Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill. 2d 384, 391 (1993). The policy should be enforced as written 

unless the policy provision in question is ambiguous or contravenes public policy. Safeway 

Insurance Co. v. Hadary, 2016 IL App (1st) 132554-B, ¶ 21; Pahn v. State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 343, 345 (1997). 

¶ 13 Here, Crowley does not argue that the intoxication exclusion barring coverage to Thomas 

Bruen is ambiguous. Rather, she contends that the exclusion is unenforceable because it 

contravenes public policy. The Illinois General Assembly declared it to be the public policy 

of this state that owners and operators of motor vehicles carry primary liability insurance 

coverage when it passed the Illinois Safety and Family Financial Responsibility Law 

(Financial Responsibility Law) (625 ILCS 5/7-601(a) (West 2016)), requiring each motorist 

to have minimum liability insurance coverage regardless of fault. See Nelson v. Artley, 2015 

IL 118058, ¶ 14. When a statute exists for the protection of the public, it cannot be 

overridden through private contractual terms. Progressive Universal Insurance Co. of Illinois 

v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 215 Ill. 2d 121, 129 (2005). One reason for this rule is 

that “the members of the public to be protected are not and, of course, could not be made 

parties to any such contract.” American Country Insurance Co. v. Wilcoxon, 127 Ill. 2d 230, 

241 (1989). Where liability coverage is mandated by statute, a contractual provision in an 

insurance policy that conflicts with the statute will be deemed void. Progressive, 215 Ill. 2d 

at 129. When we assess whether a statutory provision prevails over a contractual provision, 

however, we must keep in mind that parties generally have freedom to contract as they 

desire. Id. Our supreme court has reasoned: 

“The freedom of parties to make their own agreements, on the one hand, and their 

obligation to honor statutory requirements, on the other, may sometimes conflict. 

These values, however, are not antithetical. Both serve the interests of the public. Just 

as public policy demands adherence to statutory requirements, it is in the public’s 
- 4 - 

interest that persons not be unnecessarily restricted in their freedom to make their 

own contracts.” Id.

¶ 14 Accordingly, courts use sparingly the power to declare a contractual provision void as 

against public policy. Id. A contractual provision will not be invalidated on public policy 

grounds unless it is clearly contrary to what the constitution, the statutes, or the decisions of 

the courts have declared to be the public policy or unless it is manifestly injurious to the 

public welfare. Id. at 129-30. Such a determination depends upon the particular facts and 

circumstances of each case. Id. at 130. 

¶ 15 Both parties point to two cases in which the Illinois Appellate Court has analyzed the 

interplay between public policy and insurance contracts: Garrott and Fogel v. Enterprise 

Leasing Co. of Chicago, 353 Ill. App. 3d 165 (2004). Crowley argues that this case is 

analogous to Garrott while Empire argues that this case is analogous to Fogel.

¶ 16 In Garrott, Angelique Garrott rented an automobile from Hertz. Garrott, 238 Ill. App. 3d 

at 233. The rental agreement indicated that liability protection (which was included in the 

cost of renting the vehicle) was $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident for bodily injury, 

and $25,000 for property damage. Id. at 237. Angelique declined to purchase any liability 

insurance supplement. Id. at 236. The day after Angelique rented the vehicle, her husband, 

Rodney, was involved in an automobile accident. Id. at 233. As a result of the accident, Hertz 

was sued. Id. Hertz filed a declaratory action, asking the trial court to find that it owed no 

liability coverage to Angelique because Rodney (1) was not authorized under the contract to 

drive the vehicle and (2) violated the contract by driving while intoxicated. Id. The trial court 

found that Hertz’s contractual obligation to provide liability coverage was voided by 

Rodney’s intoxication. Id. at 234. 

¶ 17 The appellate court reversed, finding that the exclusionary clause in the insurance 

contract was void as against public policy. Id. at 240. In so holding, the appellate court 

quoted with approval a Delaware Supreme Court opinion that invalidated a similar 

intoxication exclusion: 

“ ‘[T]he fixing of penalties for antisocial conduct is, in the first instance, a 

governmental responsibility through legislative response. The Delaware General 

Assembly has expressly determined the consequences which result from a conviction 

of driving under the influence. These sanctions include the criminal penalties of fine 

and/or imprisonment [citation] and license revocation through administrative action 

[citation]. We do not believe that the General Assembly, in addition to the imposition 

of these substantial penalties, also intended, by implication, to work a forfeiture of 

insurance protection purchased in conformity with State law.’ ” Id. at 238-39 (quoting 

Bass v. Horizon Assurance Co. 562 A.2d 1194, 1197 (Del. 1989)). 

¶ 18 The Garrott court opined that, as in the Delaware case, a car rental company (a private 

entity) could not, in the name of public policy, impose a sanction upon private citizens for 

driving while intoxicated, “when such sanctions work a hardship upon the general public 

and, at the same time, benefit the rental agency and/or its insurer.” Id. at 239. The appellate 

court additionally rejected Hertz’s argument that the court should lower the amount of the 

insurance that Hertz was obligated to provide to the statutory minimum of $50,000. Id. The 

appellate court explained that it would not reform the contract because if Hertz “wanted to 

provide liability protection at a level that would merely satisfy the minimum requirement 

under the statute, it was free to have done so.” Id.
- 5 - 

¶ 19 Turning to the second case, in Fogel, the driver was in an accident while driving a vehicle 

rented from Enterprise. Fogel, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 168. The driver had purchased 

supplemental liability coverage. Id. The 18-year-old driver was able to rent a car because he 

misrepresented his age as 22. Id. Enterprise would not rent to anyone younger than 21. Id.

After the accident, Enterprise sought to rescind its contract with the driver and deny him 

insurance. Id. at 169-70. The victims of the accident sued Enterprise, arguing that 

(1) Enterprise could not rescind its contract and (2) public policy required that the contract, 

including the supplemental liability policy, be enforced. Id. at 171-73. On review, the 

appellate court rejected those arguments. Id. at 175. In rejecting the public policy argument 

that Enterprise could not rescind the contract once the rights of an innocent third party had 

vested, the appellate court stated: 

“[W]e do not find Fogel’s position persuasive. The cases cited by Fogel concern state 

laws for mandatory liability insurance. In these cases, courts have held that 

mandatory insurance statutes have abrogated the insurance company’s right to rescind 

the policy with regard to claims of persons not involved in making the 

misrepresentation. In other words, the public policy underlying mandatory insurance 

statutes requires that insurance companies cannot rescind the contract and preclude an 

innocent third party from coverage benefits. The rationale in these cases is that 

mandatory insurance statutes were enacted to protect the public from financial 

hardship and these laws have transformed what was a private contract into a 

quasi-public obligation. The public policy argument is that where a state mandates 

liability insurance in order to protect the public, the risk of a misrepresentation made 

by the applicant is borne by the insurer and not an innocent third party. 

In this case, however, Fogel’s public policy argument fails because we are not 

addressing mandatory liability coverage. *** Here, the case involves a private 

contract entered into between Enterprise and [the driver]. The supplemental liability 

protection [(SLP)] was a part of that contract. The SLP was not required under state 

law with the purpose of protecting the public from financial hardship. Thus we find 

Fogel’s public policy argument unavailing.” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 174. 

¶ 20 Fogel is more analogous to the instant case because the insurance policy at issue is an 

excess policy. We consider this to be an important distinction when considering public policy 

relating to insurance. As noted earlier, by passing the Financial Responsibility Law requiring 

each motorist to have minimum liability insurance coverage regardless of fault, the Illinois 

General Assembly declared it to be the public policy of this state that owners and operators 

of motor vehicles carry primary liability insurance coverage. See Nelson, 2015 IL 118058, 

¶ 14. However, the Financial Responsibility Law does not mandate that excess or 

supplemental liability insurance coverage be obtained once the mandated minimum level of 

insurance has been met. Id. (“The law does not, however, require that the full amount of any 

loss be covered. Rather, it mandates only certain minimum levels of coverage.”). 

Additionally, no Illinois statute precludes an intoxication exclusion in an excess or 

supplemental liability policy. See Progressive, 215 Ill. 2d at 138 (“[T]he *** Financial 

Responsibility Law clearly contemplates that exclusions may be included in policies and that 

those exclusions will be upheld.”). As such, Empire’s denial of excess or supplemental 

coverage to Thomas Bruen based on his violation of the insurance contract does not violate 

public policy. 
- 6 - 

¶ 21 In so ruling, we note that the distinction the Fogel court drew between mandatory 

insurance and supplemental insurance regarding public policy concerns is consistent with the 

way that other courts have analyzed the issue. 1 See T.H.E. Insurance Co. v. Dollar 

Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 900 So. 2d 694, 696 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (public policy 

dictates against mandating excess liability insurance coverage when an exclusion for losses 

that stem from intoxication is clearly spelled out); Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. 

Carco Rentals, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1143, 1153 (W.D. Ark. 1996) (intoxication exclusion in 

supplemental liability policy does not violate Arkansas public policy because the 

supplemental liability coverage is purely voluntary and is not designed to comply with 

minimum financial responsibility laws). 

¶ 22 Crowley argues that Fogel is distinguishable because the underlying contract in that case 

was void, as it was fraudulently entered into. Because John Bruen entered into a valid 

contract with Empire, she insists that Fogel has no relevance here. We do not believe it to be 

significant whether a driver’s insurance coverage is negated because of a misrepresentation 

in the rental contract (as in Fogel) or limited by operation of a policy exclusion (as in the 

case here). Rather, what is relevant is that Fogel involved an excess policy and Garrott did 

not.2 The Fogel court drew this same distinction when it held that the public policy rationale 

in Garrott did not apply because that case did not concern insurance coverage that was not 

required by state law. Fogel, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 174. 

¶ 23 We also reject Crowley’s argument that, based on Garrott, we should find the 

intoxication exclusion void as against public policy because enforcing the exclusion would 

“work a hardship upon the general public and, at the same time, benefit the rental agency 

and/or its insurer.” Garrott, 238 Ill. App. 3d at 239. We decline to extend Garrott to the facts 

of this case. Adopting Crowley’s argument would essentially void any insurance exclusion if 

that exclusion has the effect of harming an innocent third party. Our supreme court has 

specifically rejected that argument, stating: 

“We observed [in Progressive] that the legislature could have barred [auto] insurers 

from excluding certain risks from coverage, but did not do so, and concluded that the 

legislature must have intended that coverage exclusions may be included in liability 

policies ***. [Citation.] 

 *** We recognize that, depending upon the circumstances of a particular case, 

*** any exclusion[ ] may result in no insurance coverage from which injured third 

parties may be compensated. Such coverage gaps, however, implicate policy concerns 

 

1We recognize that it is well established that, where the public policy of Illinois may be found in 

this state’s constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions, the public policies of other states are not 

persuasive. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Collins, 258 Ill. App. 3d 1, 4 (1994). 

Nothing, however, bars this court from adopting sound reasoning. We need not ignore persuasive 

reasoning in nonprecedential decisions any more than persuasive reasoning in a learned treatise or 

anywhere else. People ex rel. Webb v. Wortham, 2018 IL App (2d) 170445, ¶ 27. 

2Crowley mischaracterizes the policy in Garrott as an excess policy because it provided greater 

coverage than was mandated by statute. An excess policy is different from a primary policy because it 

does not provide coverage until the coverage provided by the primary policy has been exhausted. See 

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 198 Ill. App. 3d 950, 955 (1990). 

The fact that a primary policy provides greater coverage than is mandated by statute does not convert a 

primary policy into an excess policy. See id.
- 7 - 

that are properly considered by the legislature, not this court.” Founders Insurance 

Co. v. Munoz, 237 Ill. 2d 424, 445 (2010). 

¶ 24 Further, we are unpersuaded by Crowley’s argument that Empire’s excess insurance 

policy is illusory (and therefore unenforceable) because it excludes coverage for all accidents 

arising from criminal acts. Crowley insists that, if the exclusion is upheld, Empire would 

never have to provide coverage because all accidents are premised on criminal acts. Our 

supreme court has rejected a similar argument, asserting that a court “need not speculate as to 

the myriad of other factual scenarios to which the exclusion might apply.” Id. at 440. Based 

on the specific facts of this case, Empire’s intoxication exclusion in the excess policy is 

enforceable. 

¶ 25 We also reject Crowley’s argument that the intoxication exclusion should be 

unenforceable because it was in small print on the reverse side of the rental agreement and 

neither John nor Thomas Bruen was provided with a copy of the Empire policy. As Empire 

points out, Crowley forfeited this issue by not raising it before the trial court. In re Estate of 

Chaney, 2013 IL App (3d) 120565, ¶ 8 (“It is well-settled law in Illinois that issues, theories, 

or arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited and may not be raised for the first time 

on appeal.”). Even overlooking forfeiture, however, whether the exclusion was in small print 

is irrelevant to whether the exclusion violates public policy. 

¶ 26 Finally, we find Crowley’s reliance on Maryland Casualty Co. v. Iowa National Mutual 

Insurance Co., 54 Ill. 2d 333 (1973), to be misplaced. Crowley argues that Maryland 

Casualty stands for the proposition that the owner of an automobile may not cause a 

permissive user to lose liability coverage by placing restrictions on the use of the vehicle. She 

therefore insists that no insurance exclusions applied to Thomas Bruen because “[o]nce the 

initial permission has been granted, no limitations may be placed upon the driver. Any 

deviations are immaterial. Any use is permissible.”

¶ 27 In Maryland Casualty, at issue was whether the insurance company had to provide 

coverage for someone who had permission to drive the vehicle but had not received that 

permission from the named insured. Id. at 336. The Maryland Casualty court did not address 

whether the exclusions that applied to the named insured also applied to anyone whom the 

insured gave permission to drive the vehicle. However, the supreme court addressed that 

issue in Progressive and held that an exclusion that applied to the named insured also applied 

to anyone whom the insured permitted to drive the vehicle. Progressive, 215 Ill. 2d at 134. 

Thus, Progressive specifically refutes Crowley’s argument.

¶ 28 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 29 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County is reversed. 

¶ 30 Reversed.