No. 3-- 08--0654

File d Decem

ber 30, 2009 IN THE

APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2009 ALL STATE INSURANCE COMPA NY, ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court a Du ly Li cens ed C or po ra t ion, ) o f t he 13 t h Ju dic ial C irc uit ) La Sa lle C o un t y, I llino is Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) ) v. ) ) CA ROL GREER and MIC HA

EL ) MIELCZA

REK, Indi

vi dual ly and as ) Spe ci al A dm i ni stra tor of the es tateof ) Dani el Mi el czarek, Deceased, ) No. 07-- MR--52 ) De f en da n ts- A pp el l an ts )

) (M atth ew Le i f h ei t, D av i d L ei f h ei t, ) an d K ar en Le i f h ei t, ) Ho no r ab le ) Joseph P. Hettel Def endan ts). ) Jud ge, Pr esiding
JU STI CEHO LD RI DGE de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t:
Allstat e I nsur ance Co mpany (Allsta t e) fil ed a dec larat or y act ion se eking a judg ment decl ari ng th at the c omp an

y wasrel i ev ed f rom p rovi di ng i ns uran ce c overa ge f or Ma tth ew Le i f h ei t, Davi d Lei fh ei t, and Karen L ei fh

ei t (t he Lei fh ei ts) in a la wsui t file d agai

nst them by Carol Greer
and Mi chael Mielcza rek (the dec eden

t's p aren ts). A l l state l

ater f i l ed a m otion f or sum mary judgm ent, which was gran

ted. The decedent's paren ts fi le d the in stant appeal f

rom the order gr an t ing su mmar y jud gme nt . We affir m.2 BACK GROUND On March

2, 2007, All

state fi le d its decl

arator y a ction seeki

ng a j udgme

nt decl arin

g that i ts i n su ra n ce pol i cy , i ss ue d to D av

i d a n d K ar en Le i f h ei t, di d n ot af f ord cov erag e f or th e L ei f h ei ts i n L a Sal l e Coun ty c ase No. 06--L --200, Gr ee rv. Le ifhe it (the l aw su i t). A l l sta te a l l eg ed th at i t: was not obli

gated to provide a de fen

se f or t he Lei fh ei ts in the la wsui t; was not obli

gated to pay any judgment ent er ed in t he laws uit ; was re lieved o f any obligat ion fo r d efense co st s incur re d by t he Leifheit s in the lawsu it; o wed no o bligat ion, co nt ra ct ual o r o t her wise, t o t he Leifheit s in the l aw sui t; wasnot obl i ga

ted to pa y an y aw ard f or pu ni ti ve da mag esi n th e l aw sui t; a nd wa s n ot obli gated to pay

any award for the plai

ntif fs ' attor ney

fees in the la wsui t. Allstate also alle ged that its p olicy did no t pr ovid e und er lyi ng medica l cove ra ge fo r injuries sus t ained a s a r esu lt o f the i n ci den t gi v i n g ri se to th e l aw su i t. The poli cy was a hom

eowner's polic

y a ff ording certai

n coverage to David and K aren Le i f h ei t. Th e dec eden t' s p ar en ts f i l ed th e l aw su i t se ek i n g to rec ov er

da mag es f rom th e L ei f h ei ts fo ra mo t o rve hic le a cc ide nt in w hic h t he de ce de nt wa s k illed
. T he Le ifhe it s w er e a lleg ed ly liable f or hi s dea th. A l l sta te' s p ol i cy excl ude d c ove

rag e f or i njuri esor da mag esres ul ti ng f rom an ac t or omi ssion that was in

tended or expected to cause bodi ly in jury or pro perty dam

age. The poli

cy also exc l ude d c ove

rag e f or b odi l y i njury or prope rty

da mag e re sul

ti ng f rom a c ri m i na l ac t or omi ssion, regardless

of whether the i

nsured was c

harged wi th, or co nvi

cted of, a crim

e. In re f er en ce to th es e ex cl

us i on s, A l l sta

te c i ted th e c om pl ai n t f i l ed b y th e dec eden

t' s p ar en ts in the la wsui t. The compl ai

nt, as am ended, al le ged that the Leif

hei ts (all over 18 yea

rs of age) negligent ly and willf

ully supplied a lcoho lic bevera ges t o t he de ced ent (1 7 year s o f age) cau sing him to beco me into xicat ed a nd impaire d. The co mplaint fur t her alleged t hat t he de ced ent 's3

into xicat ion and impairment cau sed him to die while dr iving a mot or vehicle. Co nseq uent ly, the de ce de nt 's p ar en t s d ema nd ed jud gme nt in a n a mo un t ex ce ed ing $5 0, 00 0, co ur t co st s, co st s o f su it in cl udin g reasonabl

e expenses f

or expert t estim

ony, attorney f

ees, and pun

iti ve dam ages. On informat ion and belief, Allsta t e r epr ese nt ed t o t he co ur t t hat Mat t hew L eifheit had been fo und gui l ty of a m i sdemean or for wi l l f ull y supp l y i ng a l cohol to a mi nor. On Ju ly 9, 20 07, Allstat e filed a mot ion fo r su mmary judgment . At t he hea ring o n t he
m oti on , Al l sta

te a rgue d th at ( 1) th e statu

te cre ati n g l i ab i l i ty i n th e l aw su i t re qui re d a cri m i n al ac t, (2 ) t he insur ance po licy excluded co ver age for co nduc t co nst itu t ing a cr imi nal act , a nd ( 3) t he excl usi on applie d regardles s of wh ether the in

sured was ever charged or convicted for the crim in al
ac t. Th e dec eden t' s p ar en ts a rgue d th at den y i n g c ov erag e b as ed

on a v i ol ati on of th e statu te would be tantam ount to provi

di ng a ri ght (the ri

ght to sue und er the statute) wi

thout a rem

edy
. Th ey also a rgued tha t Al l sta te c oul d have s pe cif i cal l y excl ude d the s tatute

an d c ond uc t i n q ue sti on but instead mai

ntained a general

crim in al-act rest riction i

n i ts po li cy. Under these circum

stances, t hey aver re d, t he exc lusion might also app ly i n t he ca se o f a simple tr affic violat ion, or when a traf f i c vi ola tion caus es the dea

th of another. Af ter he ari ng th e parti es' argum en ts, the c ourt gran

ted Al l state' s m

otion f or sum mary jud gme nt . T he de ce de nt 's p ar en t s t he n file d t he inst an t ap pe al.

DISCUSSION De sp i te i ts d ras ti c n atu re, su m mary j udg men t i s a n a ppr opri atewa y to di sp ose

of l i ti ga ti on when no g en ui ne i ss ue s of materi al f ac t ex i st a nd the mova nt i s enti tl ed to j udg men t asa m atte r of l aw. Crum &

Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Co rp. , 156 Ill . 2d 384 (1993). Our4

pr imary funct ion whe n co nst ru ing an insur ance po licy i s t o a sce rt ain and e nfor ce t he pa rt ies' inte nt
as expr ess ed i n the wri tten ag reem en t. Crum &

Forster , 156 Ill . 2d 384. When determi ni ng if an insure r ha s a d ut y to defend , w e must co mpar e t he allega t ions o f the unde rlying co mplaint t o t he
cove rage p rovi sions of

the i ns uran ce pol i cy . Crum &

Forster , 15 6 Ill. 2d 384 ; North br ook Pr op er t y & Casu alty Co . v. Tr ansp or t at ion Jo int Ag re ement , 19 4 I l l . 2d 96 (2 00 0) . A

du ty to defend exist s if the fac t s o f the unde rlying co mplaint fall within, or po t ent ially wit hin, t he po licy's
cove rage p rovi sions. Crum &

Forster , 156 Il

l . 2d 384 . Our revi

ew of the tri al court's sum mary judgm ent or der is de novo . Ou

tboa rd M ari ne Corp . v . Li

be rty Mu tua l In su ran ceCo. , 154 Ill . 2d 90 (19 92). In t he inst ant cas e, a co mpar ison o f the allegat ions in t he und er lyi ng co mplaint t o t he pr ovisio ns o f the insura nce p olicy sho ws t hat Allstat e do es no t have a dut y to defend . I n t he underl yi ng com pla in t, t he deceden

t's parents al

le ged that the Leif

hei ts were li abl e for dam ages beca use t hey sup plied alco holic beve ra ges t o t he de ced ent , c aus ing him to beco me into xicat ed a nd impaired , w hich cau sed him to die while dr iving a mot or vehicle. The se a llegat ions d esc ribe
cr imi nal co nduc t . S ee 2 35 I LCS 5/ 6- -1 6 ( West 200 6) (d eclar ing t hat "[n] o person, after pur ch as i ng or oth erw

i se obta i ni ng al coh ol i c l i quor , sh al l se l l , gi ve , or d el i ve r s uc h a l coh ol i c l i quor to another person under the age of 21 ye ars"). By

its pl ai n l anguage, the i

nsuran ce poli cy
ex cl ud es cov erag e f or c ri m i n al ac ts. It re ad s: "W

e do n ot co v er

an y b odi l y i n j ur y or p rop er

ty dam age i ntended b y, or whi ch m ay reasonabl

y b e expected to result from the i nte nti ona l or
cri m i n al ac ts or om

i ss i ons of , an y i ns ure d pe rs on. *** Thi s exc l

us i on a ppl i esreg ard l es s of wh et he ro rno t su ch insu r ed pe r so n is a ct ua lly cha r ge d w it h, o rco nvic t ed o f a c r ime. " ( E mph as is adde d.)5

T he de ce de nt 's p ar en t s a r gu e t ha t su mmar y jud gme nt wa s imp r o pe rbe ca us e " [ t ] he r e is *** no evi

dence i n the record to in

dic ate that Mat thew Leifh ei t intende d to harm

Dani el Mie lcz ar ek [ t he de ce de nt ] wh en he pr o vid ed Da nie l Mie lcz ar ek wit h a lco ho l. " T o su pp o r t t he ir
argu men t th at A l l sta te' s p oli cy ex cl us i on doe s n ot ap pl y ab se n t su ch i n ten t, the dec eden

t' s p ar en ts ci te Linc o ln Lo ga n Mu t ua l In su r an ce Co
. v. Fo rnsh ell , 309 Ill . App. 3d 479, 483 (1999), which states: "The construction general ly aff orded t o intentional

act excl usi ons i s to deny coverage wh er e th e i n su re d h as (1 ) i n ten de d to a ct and (2) specifi

call y i ntended to harm a thi

rd part y." Li ncol n Logan is d ist ing uis ha ble , ho we ve r , be ca us e it o nly invo lve d c o nst ruc t io n o f an int en t io na lact excl usi on. As di scussed ab ove, the in stant poli cy

contain s a cri

mi nal-act excl

usi on under which co ver age wo uld be ba rr ed ir re spe ct ive of it s inte nt ional- act exclus ion. Th e d ec ed en

t's pa ren ts al so a rgue that b

y en ac ti ng the Dru g or A l coh ol Im pai red Mi nor Responsi bi li ty Ac t (740 ILCS 58/1 et seq. (West 2006)), the General Asse mbly establ is hed a public po licy pro hibiting exclu sions like t he o ne at issue. Ho weve r, t hey do not cite , a nd we have
n ot f oun d, a n y l an gu ag e i n th e A ct th at w oul d p roh i b i t su ch ex cl us i on s. A t m ost th ey ca n pos i t a possib le readin g of am bi guous stat uto ry l

anguage. But i

n the event of statuto ry am bi guity, we
ma y e xam in e l egi sl ative

hi story (see People v . Hickm an , 1 63 I ll. 2d 2 50 ( 199 4) ), and t he leg isla t ive hist o ry o f t he Ac t co nt r av en es t he r ea din g g ive n by t he de ce de nt 's p ar en t s. Se e 9 3 I ll. Gen. Assem. , S enat e Pr oc eed ings, May 22 , 2 003 , a t 26 ( st at ement s o f Sena t or Cullert on) (sponsor of the bi

ll , explai ni ng wi thout opposition that in

surance com

pani es wanted tim

e to "redo their pol ic ie s" to "make sure that the hom eowner's polic

y does n ot cover this

Act"; al so stat in g, "i t’s pr obab l y som ethi ng w hi ch i s n ot covere d").6

In re ga rd s t o pu blic p o licy, t he c as e o f Boh ne r v . A ceA

meri ca n I ns ura nc e C o. , 35 9 I ll. App. 3d 6 21 ( 200 5) , is also instr uct ive. T he insur ed in Bohner sue d t he insur ance co mpany
ar gu ing t ha t a p o licy e xc lus io n fo rda mag es ar ising o ut o f cr iminal o rilleg al a ct s vio lat ed pu blic policy . The trial

court agreed and gran

ted summ ary j udgme

nt fi ndi ng that coverage existed. On app eal, how ever , t he su mmary judgment or der was re ver sed . S ince t he ap pellat e co ur t fou nd t he excl usi on to be valid a

nd en forceabl e, the court concl

uded that coverage did n

ot exi st (not in

g that the s am e res ul t mi ght n ot pertai n un der ci rcum stan ces i na ppl i cab l e to the i

nstant ca se). In su m , the u n derl y i n g c om pl ai n t f i l ed b y th e dec eden

t' s p ar en ts a l l eg es th at th e L ei f h ei ts engaged i n conduct that is ex

cl uded from

coverage under A

ll state's policy . The excl

usi on was
va l i d a nd en f orce ab l e. A

cc ordi ngl y , th e tri al cou rt di d n ot err i n g ran ti ng su m m ary j udg men t f or Al ls tate. CONCLUSION Fo r the f ore goi n g r ea son s, we af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e L a S al

l e C oun ty ci rc ui t cou rt. Af fi rmed. O’B RIEN, P. J ., and Mc DA DE, J., c oncu

r.