1 NOTICE Decision fi led 11/ 19/07. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-06-0266 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ KENNETH RANDA LL JOHNS ON, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff

-Appell ee, ) Sal ine County. ) and ) ) DALL AS DEAN HALE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 99-L- 49 ) M ART HA L. D AV IS, ) ) De fend ant, ) ) and ) ) ADDI SON I

NSURANCE COMPANY, ) Ho nora ble ) Bru ce D . Stew art, De fend ant-Ap pellan t. ) Judge, presiding.

________________________________________________________________________ JUST ICE G OLD EN HE RSH delivered the op inion o f the co urt: DefendantAddison Insura nce C ompan y (Addison ) appeals from a declaratory judgment

of the circuit

court of Saline Co unty allow ing the u nder insure d-mo torists cove rage provi ded by A ddiso n to p la intiff Kenneth Randall J ohnson (Johnson) to be st acked. The policyin qu estion p rovided und erinsu red-m otorists covera ge on four v ehicl es with l imit s of $50,000 per person and $1 00,000 per acciden t. The circuit cou rtfound the insurance pol icy ambiguous and de termined that the u nderinsured -motorists-c over age limi t of l iabil ity of $50,000 per veh icle can be stac ked, m aking a tota l of $2 00,0 00 in und erinsu red-m otorists
covera ge availab le to Joh nso n. B eca use the u nde rinsu red -mo toris ts co verage provi ded by2

Addisonto Johnson i s allthat i s inv olve d in the inst antmatter, p laintiff D allas D ean H ale (Hale) and d efend ant M artha L. Da vis (Da vis) take no part in th is appeal. T he issue w e are askedto address is whether the underinsured-motorist s cover age on t he four v ehicl es insured by Addi son' s pol icy may be st ack ed. We aff irm

. BACKGR OUND On November 12, 1998, Jo hn so n a nd H al e w er e r id in g i n J oh ns on 's 1995 Dodge van, when they were i nvolv ed in an aut omobile a ccident with a v ehicl e driv en by Davis. Johnson and Hale fil ed suit

agai nst Davi s for injuri es they s ustai ned in the a ccident . Davis was insure d, and her car

rier sett led the clai m with Johnsonfor the polic y limi ts of $50, 000. At the time of

the acci dent, Johns on was insured unde r a poli cy issued byAddison. The pol icy
covere d the 1995 Dodge v an that Johnson was dri vingat the time of the acci dent andfour additi onal vehi cles–a 1996 Plymouth Neon, a 1991 GM C Sonoma, a 1977 Ford F-250, and
a 1981 travel trailer. T he polic y char ged five separate pre miums. The first f our vehi cles underthe policy carried underinsu red-motorists coverage of $ 50,000 per pers o n and $100,0 00 per ac cident. Th e travel trailer did not carry unde rinsured-mo torists coverage. The limi ts of l iabil ity are lis ted separ atel y for each v ehicl e on the dec larat ion s pa ge of the in suran ce po licy, w hich e ncom passe s the first th ree pa ges of the policy :

" Vehi cle# 1 RAT I NG TOTAL PREMIUM $ 201 YEAR M A K E MO DEL VE H ICL E ID N O . S Y MBOL CLASS RATED DRI VER USAG E T ERR 1996 PLYM OU NE ON HIGHLI 1P3ES 42C7TD 517047 13 885120 OPR. AGE 50-64 Ple asure 34 LINDA JOHNSON

COVER AGES: LIA BILI TY (000S) M ED PAY (000S) UM (000S) UIM (000S) PDUM (000S) OTC (1) COLLISION (1) T OWI NG P H E LIMIT 50/ 100 BI 50PD 5 50/100 50/100 50 DE DU CTIBLE 50 500 PREMI UM 42 25 6 16 INCL 60 52 5

ADDIT I ONAL FOR MS FO R THIS VEHICLE: PREMI UM DIS COUN TS FOR THI S VEHI CLE : PP0303 0486 TOWIN G AND LABOR C OSTS COV ERAGE PA SS RE ST RA IN 2 S ID E $ -2 PP0401 04 86 SPL IT UNINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS AN TI LO CK BR AK ES $ -3 PP0402 0486 SPL IT UNDERINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS3 PP0447 0897 IL LI NOIS -UNDERINSURED MOTORI STS IL7032 0796 LOSS PAYABLE/LESSOR CLAUSE

CHRYSLER FI

NAN. CO RP PO BO X 207002 STO CKT ON, CA 95267

Vehi cle# 2 RAT I NG TOTAL PREMIUM $ 161 YEAR M A K E MO DEL VE H ICL E ID N O . S Y MBOL CLASS RATED DRI VER USAG E T ERR 1995 DODGE RAM VAN B25 2B7HB 21Y7SK 558104 06 885120 OPR. AGE 50-64 Pleasure 34

COVER AGES: LIA BILI TY (000S) M ED PAY (000S) UM (000S) UIM (000S) PDUM (000S) OTC (1) COLLISION (1) T OWI NG P H E LIMIT 50/ 100 BI 50PD 5 50/100 50/100 50 DE DU CTIBLE 50 500 PREMI UM 42 25 6 16 INCL 34 37 5

ADDIT I ONAL FOR MS FO R THIS VEHICLE: PREMI UM DIS COUN TS FOR THI S VEHI CLE : PP0303 0486 TOWIN G AND LABOR C OSTS COV ERAGE PA SS RE ST RA IN 1 S ID E $ -1 PP0401 04 86 SPL IT UNINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS AN TI LO CK BR AK ES $ -3 PP0402 0486 SPL IT UNDERINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS PP0447 0897 IL LI NOIS -UNDERINSURED MOTORI STS IL7032 0796 LOSS PAYABLE/LESSOR CLAUSE

CHRYSLER CREDIT CO RP PO BO X 207002 STO CKT ON, CA 95267

Vehi cle# 3 RAT I NG TOTAL PREMIUM $ 157 YEAR M A K E MO DEL VE H ICL E ID N O . S Y MBOL CLASS RATED DRI VER USAG E T ERR 1991 GMC S O N O M A 1GTC S19Z9M 2500778 07 885120 OPR. AGE 50-64 Pleasure 34 KENN ETH JOHNSON

COVER AGES: LIA BILI TY (000S) M ED PAY (000S) UM (000S) UIM (000S) PDUM (000S) OTC (1) COLLISION (1) T OWI NG P H E LIMIT 50/ 100 BI 50PD 5 50/100 50/100 50 DE DU CTIBLE 50 500 PREMI UM 42 25 6 16 INCL 31 32 5

ADDIT I ONAL FOR MS FO R THIS VEHICLE: PREMI UM PP0303 0486 TOWIN G AND LABOR C OSTS COV ERAGE PP0401 04 86 SPL IT UNINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS PP0402 0486 SPL IT UNDERINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS PP0447 0897 IL LI NOIS -UNDERINSURED MOTORI STS4 Vehi cle# 4 RAT I NG TOTAL PREMIUM $ 87 YEAR M A K E MO DEL VE H ICL E ID N O . S Y MBOL CLASS RATED DRI VER USAG E T ERR 1977 FORD F250 F25SCZ 81449 07 885920 OPR. AGE 50-64 Farm 34

COVER AGES: LIA BILI TY (000S) M ED PAY (000S) UM (000S) UIM (000S) PDUM (000S) OTC (1) COLLISION (1) T OWI NG P H E LIMIT 50/ 100 BI 50PD 5 50/100 50/100 15 DE DU CTIBLE 250 PREMI UM 35 21 5 16 INCL 10

ADDIT I ONAL FOR MS FO R THIS VEHICLE: PREMI UM PP0401 04 86 SPL IT UNINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS PP0402 0486 SPL IT UNDERINS URED MOTORI STS L IMITS PP0447 0897 IL LI NOIS -UNDERINSURED MOTORI STS PP0486 0694 IL LI NOI S- PRO PERT Y DAMAG E UM

Vehi cle# 5 RAT I NG TOTAL PREMIUM $ 0 YEAR M A K E MO DEL VE H ICL E ID N O . S Y MBOL CLASS RATED DRI VER USAG E T ERR 1981 BUCA NE 32 ' TRAVEL 1M 7BRO 2R1B132064 11 944200 CAMPER TRA IL ER Ple asure 34

COVER AGES: LIA BILI TY (000S) M ED PAY (000S) UM (000S) UIM (000S) PDUM (000S) OTC (1) COLLISION (1) T OWI NG P H E LIMIT DE DU CTIBLE 50 500 P R EMI UM" After the declarations p age, the policy co ntains a "D efinitions" section. The policy is then div ided into vari ous sect ions, including liabi lit y covera ge, medi cal-paym ent s
covera ge, uninsure d -mot orist s cover age, c overag e for damag e to aut os, duti es aft er an accident or loss , and gene ral pr ovis ions. The g eneral -prov isi ons porti on of the poli cy contains the foll owing paragraph concerning coverag e by two or more policies:

"TWO OR M ORE AUTO POLI CIES If this policy and any o ther au to insu rance policy issued to yo u by us ap ply to the same accid ent, the max imum limit of ou r liability und er all the poli cies s hall not exceed the highest applicable limit of liability under a ny one policy." The policy a lso cont ains an underinsure d-motor ist s endorsement , which states, " [T]he provisions of the po licy apply un less modified by the endo rsement." The underins ured-mot orist s endorsement direct s the r eader to "S EE DEC LA RATI ON5

FOR LIMIT OF LIABILITY AN D P RE MIU M." The en dorseme nt fu r ther pr ovides in pertine nt part: "I

NSUR I NG AGRE EMENT A. W e will pay c ompen satory dam ages w hich a n 'insured ' is legally entitled to
recove r from the owner or operat or of an 'underins ured motor vehi cle'because of 'bodily inju ry:'

1. Sust ained by an ' insure d;' and 2. C ause d by an ac ciden t. The own er' s or operator' s li ability for these damag es must arise out of t he
own ership, mainten ance[,] or use of the 'underinsured motor vehicle.' We will pay unde r thi s cover age onl y after the l i mits of li ability under any applic able bodily injury l iabil ity bonds or poli cies hav e been exhaust ed by payment of judgments or se ttlements ***." The limit-of-liab ility clause conta ined in the underinsured-motorist s endorsement stat es as follows: "A. The limit of liab ility show n in the Sc hedule orin the D eclara tions fo r this
covera g e is our maximum li mit of liabi lit y for al l damag es resultingfrom any one accident. T his is the most w e will pay regard less of the num ber of:

1. 'In su re ds '; 2. Claims made; 3. Vehicles or premi ums shown in the Decl arati ons; or 4. Ve hicles involved in the accide nt." A dispute aro se betw een the p artie s rega rdin g the a mo unt of u nde rinsu red -mo toris ts co verage avai lable to Johnson under the poli cy. Johnson fi led an amended motion for a declaratory summary judgment in whic h he6

s oughta declar ation t hat the insurance poli cy issue d to him by Addi son prov ides und erinsu red-m otorists covera ge i n the sum of $200,000. Addis on fil ed a respons e in which itargued t

hat the re was no underi nsured-motorist s cover age av aila ble to J ohnson due to the antistac king langua ge in the poli cy an d Da vi s' s c arri er ' s p re vi ous pa yme ntof $50 ,0 00. On May 5, 2006, the circuit court entere d an order in which it f ound that t

he insur ance poli cy issued by A ddiso n to Jo hnso n w as am biguou s and determ ined th at the und erins uredmoto ris ts-co verage limit of liabilit y of $50 ,000 pe r vehicle could be stacked, there b y provi ding John son w ith $20 0,00 0 of u nder insure d-mo to rist s cov erage . Addison f iled a timely n otice o f app eal. AN AL Y SIS The issue in the ins tant

cas e is w heth er th e un der insu red -mo toris ts co verage on the fourvehi cles insured by Addi son' s insur ance poli cy may be stacked. Addis on contends t hat the limit of liability f

or un derins ured -moto rists cover age un der the policy in issue is $50,000 perperson and $100,000 pe r accident and that the cov erage s may notbe stacked because t he limit-of-liab ility clause c ontaine d in the pol icy is an unambiguous antis tacking provis ion that must be enforce d. Addison f urther contends that s ince the $50,000 poli cy limi ts hav e been paid by th e t or tf

ea so r's carri er, the $50,000 of underins ured-mot orist s cover age af forded by the policy in issue i s not av aila ble as a mat

ter of law. Ad di so n i ns is ts th at th e c ir cu it co ur t's ordershould b e reversed and a judgment sho uld be en tered in favor of Add ison. W e disagree. This appeal was t akenfrom the circ uit cour t' s gr ant of a s ummary judgment in f avor of Johnson and ag ainst

Addison. I

n an appeal f

rom the grantof

a s umm ary j udgme nt , we conducta de novo review. Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp. , 156 Ill. 2d 384, 390, 620 N.E.2d 1073, 1077 (1993). The cons truction of an insurance pol icy is a que st io n of

law ( American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms , 177 Ill. 2d 473, 479-80, 6877

N.E.2d 72, 75 (1997)) and is anappropri at e subject for dispo sition by w ay of a sum mary judgment. Crum & Forster Managers Corp. , 156 Ill. 2d at 390-9 1, 620 N .E.2d a t 1077. When a court constr

ues an ins urance pol icy, t he agre ementis t o be enforce d as written
so long a s it

is unambi guous and o nly to th e exte nt that it does not cont ravene public pol icy. Menke v. Country Mutual Insuranc e Co. , 78 Ill. 2d 420 , 401 N.E .2d 5 39 (1 980 ). In genera l, antis tacking clauses do not contravene public policy. Grzeszczak v . Illino is Farmer s InsuranceCo. , 168 I ll. 2d 216, 229, 659 N.E.2d 952, 959 (1 995). The I llinois Insurance Code ex pressly authori zes the us e of anti stacking provis ions i n motor v ehicl e insur ance polici es . 215 ILCS 5/14 3a-2 (5) (W est 20 02). H ow ever, if an y pro vision of the po licy is ambiguous, that am biguity m ust be cons trued in favorof the insured. Squ ire v . Ec ono my Fire& Casualty Co. , 69 Ill. 2d 167, 18 0, 370 N .E.2d 1 044, 10 49 (197 7). In determ ining w hethe r an am biguity exist s, allthe prov isi ons in an i nsurance cont ract shou ld be read t ogether and not in isol ation

. Glidden v. F armers AutomobileInsurance Ass'n , 57 Ill. 2d 330, 33 6, 312 N.E .2d 2 47, 2 50 (1 974 ); Chester v. State F arm Mutual Auto mo bile Insurance Co. , 227 I ll. App. 3d 320, 325, 591 N.E.2d 488, 492 ( 1992). Poli cy provi sions are deemed ambi guous i f they ar e subj ect to more than o ne rea sona ble inter pretation. State Farm Mutual AutomobileInsurance Co. v. Reinhardt , 253 I ll. App. 3d 823, 824, 62 5 N.E .2d 842 , 843 (19 93). R ea sona blene ss is the ke y, an d the to uchs tone is whetherthe prov isi on is subj ect t o more than one reasonable inter pretation, not

whether
crea tive possibi lities can be sugg ested. Bruder v. CountryMutual Insuranc e Co. , 156 I ll. 2d 179, 19 3, 620 N .E.2d 3 55, 362 (1993). In Bruder , the I llinoi s Su preme Court cons idered whether a pla inti ff shoul d be allowedto stack u nder insure d-mo torists co verage on two vehicles set forth on a s ingle business automob ile policy. Brude rheld th at wh en the antistac king claus e w as read in conjunc tionwith the de claration s page, no am biguity a rose b ecau se the lim it o f th e8

und erinsu red-m otorists covera ge wa s set forth only one time on the decl arati ons page, inst ead of two times. The Brudercourt di scussed what would ha ppen if t he underins uredmotori sts cov erage was set f orth t wo times on the decl arati ons page, once adjace nt to ea ch insu red vehic le, sta ting:

"It woul d not be dif

ficult to f

ind an ambiguity creat ed by such a li sti ng of the bod ily injury liability limit for each person insu red. *** T here wo uld b e little to suggest in such a l ist ing t

hat the parti es intende d that c overag e was to be limited to that provi ded for only on e of the two pickup trucks. It would b e m ore re ason able to
as su me that t

he parti es intended that , in ret urn for t he tw o premiums, two *** coverage amounts were affor ded ." (Emph asis added .) Bruder , 156 I ll. 2d at192, 620 N.E.2d at 362. Other court s have f

ollowed thi s rat ionale

. For examp le, Pekin I

nsurance Co. v. Est

ate of Goben , 303 I ll. Ap p. 3d 63 9, 707 N.E.2d 1259 (1999), adopt ed the rea soningin Bruderand held that the anti stacki ng clause in issue was ambi guous becaus e the decl arati ons page to which the clause r eferr ed li st edtwo vehi cles with sepa rate co verages a nd se parate prem iums. T he tw o un derins ured -moto rists
covera ges in the amount of $5 00,0 00 w ere allo we d to b e stacke d, ma king $1 m illion in und erinsu red-m otorists cove rage available. Likewise, Allen v. Transameric a Insurance Co. , 128 F.3d 462 (7th C ir. 199 7), reli ed upon by the Estate of Goben court, held that the antis tacking clause there in issue was ambiguous because the declar ations page t o which the clause refer

red li stedtwo vehi cles with separ ate cov erage s and separ ate pre miums li sted f or each vehicle. Yates v. Farme rs Autom obile Insuran ce Ass'n , 311 I ll. App. 3d 797, 724 N.E .2d 104 2 (2000 ), decided b y this court, also pe rmitted stacking. In Yates , the poli cy cover ed two vehi cles and c ontaine d antis tacking l anguag e simi lar to the instant case in that th e und erinsu red-m otorists covera ge was sai d to be limited to the9

liability shown in the declarations pa ge. The declarations page i dentif ied two v ehicl es that
were covere d. I n the row corr espondingto underinsured-motorist s cover age, t he polic y limits were lis ted under " auto one" and " auto two," and a premium was l ist ed for eac h vehi cle. The declar ations page al so contained a s tat em en t th at p ro vid ed , " 'CO V ER AG E IS PROVIDED WHE RE A P RE MI UM AND AL I MI T OF LIABI LI TY OR THE WORD "I NCLU DED" ARE SH OW N FO R CO VER AGE.' " Yates , 311 I ll. App. 3d at 800, 724 N.E.2d a t 1045. Ya tes held that the de clarations page was inc onsist ent with and contradictory to the antis tacking provis ion. Theref ore, the polic y was construe d in fav or of the insure d and the underinsured-motorist s cover age was stacked. Yates , 311 I ll. App. 3d at 800, 724 N.E.2d at 1045. He re, Ad dison prom ises tha t it"willpay compensator y damages whic h an ' insure d' is l egal ly entitled to recove r from t he owner oroperator

of an ' underins ured motor vehi cle' because of ' bodily injury.'" Under thi s language, Addi son agr ees to pay al l the damages t hat Johns on is entitled to recover. Ho wever, this language ca nnot be rea d in isolation. Th e und erinsu red-m otorists endo rseme nt also c ontain s a limit-of- liability section , wh ich dire cts the reade r to eithe r the sc hedu le or the decla rations page. T he sc hedu le is blank, b ut the decla rations page a ctually comprises three pages. These pages lis t fi ve v ehicl es, only f our of wh ich ha ve und erinsu red-m otorists c overage. Un derins ured -moto ris ts cov er age i n the
sum of $50,0 00 app ears four sepa rate times, once fo r each of the fo ur vehi cles carryi ng underinsu red-motorists coverage. The declar ations pages here and in Yates are arr anged similarly in t hat eachlis ts the limit of li ability more t

han once. The distinction be tween li sti ng the limi ts of liabi lit y once and lis tingthem more t

han once was crucia l to our supreme cour

t' s deter minati on in Hobbs
v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the M idwest , 214 I ll. 2d 11, 823 N.E.2d 561 (2005). I n Hobbs , the Ha rtford p olicy in questi on lis ted the limi ts of unde rinsured-motorist s cover age onl y once10

on the declarations p age. Hobbs noted the ap parent similarities between the H artford insurance policy and the poli cy in Bruder

. Hobbs , 214 I ll. 2d at 21, 823 N.E.2d at 566. The ant ist acki ng provi sion i n the Hartf ord poli cy tie d the limit of underins ured-mot or ist s
covera g e to the l imit

shown on the declarati ons page. The declarations page l ist ed the premiums for the two vehi cles s eparat ely but l ist ed the relevan t limit of li ability only once

. The supreme cour

t read t he antis tacking pro vision in co nju nctio n w ith th e de clara tion s pa ge and determ ined th at the p oli c y w as u nam bigu ous and that t he c over ages did not stac k. Hobbs , 214 Ill. 2d at 21, 82 3 N.E .2d at 566

. Hobbs did not ov errul e Bruderbut, rather, used the Bruderana lysis in d eterm inin g that c over age d id n ot sta ck. We are mindf

ul that there i s no per se rule t

hat li sti ng the numericallimi ts more than
once on the decl arati ons page creates an ambiguity which res ults in all owing the policie s to be stacked. See Hobbs , 214 Ill. 2d at 26 n.1 , 8 23 N.E.2d a t 569 n.1
. Hobbs stat ed: "The decl arat ions page o f an ins uran ce po licy is bu t one p iece o f the ins uring agre emen t. [Citation.] Although it contains imp ortant information sp ecific to the policyho lder, th e declarations pa ge cannot ad dress every con ceivable coverage issue." Hobbs , 214 Il l. 2d at 23, 823 N.E .2d at 567. Nevertheless, after applying

the case -by-cas e revi ew advocat ed by
our supre me co urt ( Hobbs , 214 Ill. 2d a t 26 n.1 , 82 3 N .E. 2d a t 56 9 n. 1), th e po licy l angu age in the instant case p roves to be amb iguous. As previously stated, the Ad dison po licy here in quest ion and the pol icy in Yates are similar. In contra st to Bruderand Hobbs , the pol icy in Yates lists the un derins ured -moto rists
cove rage limi ts twice, once for each of the two cover ed vehi cles. See Hobbs , 214 I ll. 2d at 25, 823 N.E .2d a t 568 -69. H ere, the limits of u nder insure d-mo torists covera ge are lis tedfour sepa rate times , once for eac h vehi cle cov ered. Four s eparat e premiums for under insure dmoto rists covera ge also a ppea r on th e dec laration s page. Such a factua l distin ct ion is materi al to a det ermination reg ardingwhether the re is an ambiguity in an insur ance poli cy.11

Hobbs , 214 Il l. 2d at

25, 823 N .E.2 d at 5 68. This i s not a cas e in which one has to be
crea tive to fi nd an ambiguity. After read ing th e po licy, a rea son able per son cou ld b elieve that the poli cy provi des $50,000 of underinsure d-motor ist s cover ag e for eac h of the f our vehi cles carrying underinsured-mot orist s cover age, f or a total o f $20 0,00 0 in underins uredmotori sts cov erage . The und erinsu red-m otorists endorsement stat es, "[ T]he provi sions of the policy apply unless modifi ed by the endor sement. " The anti stacking c lause f ound under the " General Prov isi ons " secti on of the pol icy, t herefor e, does not

even come into play, because the und erinsu red-m otorists endorsement direct s th e r ea de r t o " SE E DECL ARA TI ON FOR LIM IT OF LIABILI TY AN D PR EM IUM." Even assuming the antist acki ng cl ause is applic able, the Addi son poli cy contai ns inconsistent provisions, w hich w e are to con strue in favor of the insured. The Addison p olicy contains a general antistacking provision. How ever, the limit-ofliability clause c ontaine d in the unde rinsured-motorist s endorsement stat es that

the limi t of liability shown in the decl arati ons page i s the maxi mum limi t of liability. The declarations page shows limi ts of $50, 000 per person , and those limits are lis ted four separat e time s and show that f

our separat e premiums were charg ed. Relying on Bruder , Allen , Estate of Goben , and Yates , we find that the antis tacking c laus es co ntaine d in the A ddison pol icy cre ate an ambiguity. According ly, we fi nd that t he circ uit cour

t' s decis ion gr anting

Johnson $200,000 in und erinsu red-m otorists coverage, a figure arri ved at by agg regating t

he $50,000 li mit f

or und erinsu red-m otorists covera ge on each of the f o ur vehic les carry ing that co verage in Johnso n's insurance policy, w as correct. CONCL USI ON For th e f or eg oi ngre as ons , we affirm th e circu itcourt' s gr ant of a s ummary judgment in fav or of Johns on.12

Affirmed.

W ELCH , P.J., and C HAP MA N, J., co ncur.NO. 5-06-0266 I N THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ KENNETH RANDA LL JOHNS ON, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff

-Appell ee, ) Sal ine County. ) and ) ) DALL AS DEAN HALE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 99-L- 49 ) M ART HA L. D AV IS, ) ) De fend ant, ) ) and ) ) ADDI SON I

NSURANCE COMPANY, ) Ho nora ble ) Bru ce D . Stew art, De fend ant-Ap pellan t. ) Judge, presiding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : November 19, 2007

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable R ichard P. Goldenhersh, J.

Honorable Thomas M. Welch, P.J., and Hon orable M elissa A. Cha pman, J., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn ey Shane M . Carnine , Camp bell, Black, Ca rnine, H edin, Ba llard & M cDo nald, P.C ., for P.O. Drawer C, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 Appe llant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn ey R ob er t H . H ow er to n, H ow er to n, D or ris & S to ne , 3 00 W es t M ain , M ar io n, IL for 62959 Appell ee

___________________________________________________________________________________