Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mack, 2016 IL App (1st) 141171

Appellate Court 

Caption

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

VANITY MACK, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. First District, Fifth Division

Docket No. 1-14-1171

Rule 23 order filed 

Rule 23 order

withdrawn

Opinion filed

June 30, 2016

August 15, 2016

August 26, 2016

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 11-CH-38827; the 

Hon. John C. Griffin, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

A. Leo Wiggins, Jr., and Caren Schulman, both of Chicago, for 

appellant.

Condon & Cook, L.L.C., of Chicago (Guy M. Conti and Mark B. 

Ruda, of counsel), for appellee.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with 

opinion.

Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment 

and opinion. 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Defendant, Vanity Mack, appeals a number of circuit court orders, which ultimately barred 

an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim she had initiated against plaintiff, Allstate Insurance 

Company. Plaintiff filed the underlying declaratory judgment in the circuit court, seeking a 

declaration that defendant breached the parties’ contract by refusing to provide executed 

Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act (HIPAA) authorization forms and to submit 

to an oral examination under oath. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of 

plaintiff and against defendant and denied defendant’s requests for reconsideration of those 

decisions. On appeal, defendant contends that the rules of the American Arbitration Act 

(AAA) precluded her from complying with plaintiff’s discovery requests because she already 

had demanded arbitration proceedings. Based on the following, we affirm. 

¶ 2 FACTS 

¶ 3 On October 26, 2010, defendant submitted a UIM claim to plaintiff and also filed a demand 

for arbitration with the AAA. In response, on December 7, 2010, plaintiff advised defendant to 

provide executed HIPAA authorizations and to appear for an oral examination under oath 

pursuant to the terms of the parties’ insurance policy. Defendant concedes that she failed to 

comply with plaintiff’s requests and additionally concedes that she failed to comply with 

plaintiff’s subsequent repeated requests to do so. In its subsequent declaratory judgment 

action, plaintiff alleged defendant breached the parties’ insurance contract where she failed to 

comply with the terms of the policy and, therefore, was barred from pursuing her UIM claim. 

In response, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and later filed a motion for 

summary judgment—both times arguing that the rules of the AAA regarding discovery 

superseded the requirements of her insurance policy; therefore, she was under no obligation to 

comply with plaintiff’s discovery requests. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was 

denied, as was her motion to reconsider that finding. Plaintiff then filed a motion for summary 

judgment. The circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied 

defendant’s motion to reconsider that finding. Defendant timely appealed. 

¶ 4 ANALYSIS 

¶ 5 On appeal, defendant maintains that the rules of the AAA governed the adjudication of the 

underlying insurance claim once she requested arbitration. More specifically, defendant argues 

that, because she simultaneously instituted arbitration proceedings when she submitted her 

UIM claim, only the arbitrator had the authority to order discovery pursuant to the AAA rules, 

not plaintiff. Defendant, therefore, insists that she was not obligated to comply with plaintiff’s 

discovery requests. However, contrary to defendant’s argument, the issue on appeal is not a 

discovery dispute per se. Rather, the issue is whether defendant was in breach of the parties’ 
- 3 - 

contract by failing to accommodate plaintiff’s requests to provide executed HIPAA 

authorizations and to appear for an examination under oath. 

¶ 6 Summary judgment is proper and should be granted “without delay if 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 2010). When the parties filed cross-motions for 

summary judgment, they conceded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and 

invited the court to decide the questions presented as a matter of law. American Family Mutual 

Insurance Co. v. Niebuhr, 369 Ill. App. 3d 517, 522 (2006). We review an order granting 

summary judgment de novo. Bohner v. Ace American Insurance Co., 359 Ill. App. 3d 621, 623 

(2005). A circuit court’s finding on a motion to reconsider is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Stoval, 374 Ill. App. 3d 1064, 1078 (2007). 

“The construction of an insurance policy and a determination of the rights and 

obligations thereunder are questions of law for the court and, thus, are appropriate 

subjects for disposition by way of summary judgment. [Citation.] In construing an 

insurance policy, the primary function of the court is to ascertain and enforce the 

intentions of the parties as expressed in the agreement. [Citation.] To ascertain the 

intent of the parties and the meaning of the words used in the insurance policy, the 

court must construe the policy as a whole, taking into account the type of insurance for 

which the parties have contracted, the risks undertaken and purchased, the subject 

matter that is insured, and the purposes of the entire contract. 

 If the words in the policy are clear and unambiguous, the court will afford them 

their plain, ordinary meaning and will apply them as written.” Bohner, 359 Ill. App. 3d 

at 623-24. 

¶ 7 We find the terms of the insurance policy at issue here were clear and unambiguous. Under 

the section dedicated to UIMs’ insurance coverage, the parties’ policy stated the following:

“Proof of Claim; Medical Reports

 As soon as possible, any person making [a] claim must give us written proof of 

[the] claim. It must include all details we may need to determine the amounts payable. 

We may also require any person making [a] claim to submit to [an] examination under 

oath and sign the transcript. 

 The insured person may be required to take medical examinations by physicians we

choose, as often as we reasonably require. We must be given authorization to obtain 

medical reports and copies of records.”

Therefore, according to the plain policy language, in order to make a UIM claim, defendant 

was required to provide written proof of the claim with “all details [plaintiff] may need to 

determine the amounts payable.” This included executing a nonoptional authorization to obtain 

medical reports and copies of records, along with possibly having to submit to an oral 

examination under oath. As expressly provided by the insurance policy, plaintiff instructed 

defendant that, in order to review her UIM claim, it needed executed HIPAA authorizations, as 

well as for her to submit to an oral examination under oath. Plaintiff’s requests clearly were 

supported by the plain language of the proof of claim notice provided in the insurance policy. 

Defendant concedes that she failed to comply with plaintiff’s requests and, therefore, breached 
- 4 - 

the terms of the parties’ insurance policy. As a result, defendant was not entitled to pursue her 

UIM claim. We, therefore, find plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment. 

¶ 8 We acknowledge that the insurance policy also contained a section titled “If We Cannot 

Agree.” The section provided, in relevant part:

“If the insured person or we don’t agree on that person’s right to receive any 

damages or the amount, then upon the written request of either, the disagreement will 

be settled by arbitration. Arbitration will take place under the rules of the American 

Arbitration Association unless the insured person or we object.”

Based on its plain language, the arbitration section presumes the parties were unable to come to 

an agreement prior to instituting the arbitration process. There was no such disagreement here. 

In fact, review of the UIM claim had not yet been completed because defendant failed to 

comply with the terms of claim submission. Where plaintiff had not yet presented a finding as 

to defendant’s rights to receive any damages or an amount, there was no disagreement upon 

which to institute arbitration proceedings. We, therefore, find that the AAA rules did not 

prohibit compliance with the terms of the insurance policy. 

¶ 9 CONCLUSION 

¶ 10 In sum, we conclude the circuit court properly denied summary judgment against 

defendant and granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. We, therefore, find the circuit 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motions to reconsider those findings.

¶ 11 Affirmed.