No. 3--06--0606

Filed April 10, 2007. IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2007 VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Will County, Illinois ) v. ) ) BILL’S BUILDERS, INC., a corporation, and ) WILLIAM R. GEIGNER, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) ______________________________________ ) No. 05-MR-0370 ) WILLIAM R. GEIGNER, ) ) Third-Party Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RYAN-REUM INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ) Honorable ) Herman S. Haase, Third-Party Defendant. ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE CARTER delivered the opinion of the court:

______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff, Virginia

Surety Company (Virginia Surety), brought action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that William R. Geigner (Geigner) was not covered under the workers’ compensation

insurance policy

of Bill’s Builder’s, Inc. (the corporation) and that Virginia Surety had no duty to makepayment on Geigner’s workers’ compensation claim. Virginia Surety and Geigner filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial courtgranted Geigner’s motion for summary2

judg ment and den

ie d Vi rgi ni a Surety’ s m

otion . Virgini

a Sur ety appea ls. We reverse t he tr ial cou rt ’s or der gr ant ing Geigne r’s mot ion fo r su mmary judgment as t o c ou nt one (coverage) and count two (re i m b ur se men t) o f t he c o mplain t , a ff

ir m the tri al cou rt’ s orde r gran

ti ng Ge i gner’ s m

oti on f or sum mary judgm ent as to co unt three (resci ssio n) o f the compl ai nt, aff irm the trial court ’s order denying Virg inia Sur et y’s cro ss- mot ion fo r su mmary judgment as t o c ou nt t hre e o f the co mplaint, and rem and this ca se f

or fu rther proceed

i ngs cons i sten t wi th thi s order.

FA CTS The fact s as d et er mined fro m the p leadings and ot her docume nts fi le d by the parties i

n the trial courtare a s f

oll ows. The corporati on wa s i

nv olv ed i n the con structi

on b usi ne ss, a n e xtra hazardous ac ti v i ty as def in ed by the Ill in ois W orke r s’ Co mp ensa t ion Act (8 20 I LCS 305 /3 (Wes t 200 4) (t he Act )) . G eigner was pr eside nt of t he co rp or at ion. In March of

2002, the corpo ration appl ie d for workers’ compen sation i nsuran ce through Ry an -R e um In su ran ceA ge nc y (Ry an-Re um ). Th e a ppl i ca ti on waspre

pa red by Th omasRy

an of Ry an-Reum and b ore t he al

le ged signat ur e o f Geigner . T he bus iness wa s de scr ibed in t he appl i ca ti on as a on e-m an ca rpe nte r con tractor bus i

ne ss wi th n o em pl oyee s. P ag e tw o of

the appl i ca ti on contain ed a se ct ion ent itled , “I NDI VI DUAL S INCL UDE D/E XCLU DE D”, unde r w hich Geigne r a nd his wif e, K ri sti na (th e s ec reta

ry of t he co r po r at io n) , we r e lis t ed . I n a co lumn l ab eled, “INC/EXC,” t he notation “Excl

” was wri tt en i n ref erence to both Geign

er an d K r ist ina . T he “E ”, “c ”, an d “ l” in “E xc l” wer e hand wr itt en. The “x” wa s t ypewr itt en. The bot t om o f pag e t wo also bor e t he al le ged sig na ture of Ge i gner. A f

ter i t wa s r ej ec ted

by othe r ca rri ers , th e a ppl i ca ti on wassu

bm i tted f or coverage through the National Cou nc i l on Com pens ati on I ns ura nc e (N CC I), th

e a ss i gned

ri sk pool1 The com pl ai nt of relev ance to thi s ap

peal i s Vi rgi ni a Surety’ s f

i rst am en ded c omp l ai

nt. We wi ll refer to it here si

mpl y as “the com

pla in t”. 3 for wor kers’ compensation i nsurance i n Ill in ois. In re sp on se to th e a pp l i ca ti on , V i rg i n i a S ur ety

issued t he workers’ compens ation i nsuran ce policy in ques t ion. The co rp or at ion wa s liste d o n t he po licy as the insure d. The po licy cover ed t he pe riod f rom Ap ri l3, 2 002 to April 3, 2003. Attached to the poli cy was endorsem

ent num ber WC000308, entitl ed, “PART NERS, OFF ICERS AND OTHE RS EXCLUSIO N ENDORSEMENT ” (emphasis in original ). The endo rsement provided as follows: “The policy

does not co ver bodi

l y i nj ury to any

person descri

bed i n the (s)che dule . The premi um ba sis for the po li

cy does not incl

ude the remuneration of such persons. You will reimburse us fo r a ny

payment we m

ust make b ecause of b odil

y i nj ury to such pers ons.” Ge i gn er an d K ri sti n a w er e l i ste d i n th e s ch ed ul e on th e en dor se

men t. In Mar ch o f 200 3, Geigne r su ffered a sp inal cor d injury whe n h e fe ll fro m a s ca ffo ld w hile work ingfor the corpor ation. A cl ai m wa s m ade agai nst the workers’ compensation i nsuran ce , however, coveragewas denied . G eigner subs equ ent ly f iled a claim with t he Indus tri al Com m i ss i on f or workers ’ com

pen sati on b enef i ts. While th e c l ai

m wa s p en di n g, V i rg i n i a S ur ety f i l ed i n th e tr i al cou rt a t hre e- co unt co mplaint f orde cl ar ator y j udgm en t. 1 Co unt one alle ged that Virgi nia Surety had

no duty to pro vi

de coverage f or Gei gne r’si nj ury be ca us e G ei gner h ad be en excl ude d f rom co ve r ag e. Co un t t wo alle ge d t ha t if Vir gin ia Su re ty wa s req ui re d to prov

i de cov er ag e f or G ei gn er ’s i n j ur y , i t wa s e n ti tl ed to re imbursement fr o m t he co r po r at io n fo rall a mounts pai d with res

pect to the cl ai

m. Count three4

al le ged th at th e p oli cy sh oul d b e r es ci n de d b ec au se

i t wa s proc ur ed

th rou gh a m ate rial m i sstate men t.
Gei gner fi le d a mot ion fo r su mmary judgment as t o a ll thre e co unt s o f the co mplaint alleging that he ha d n ot ef f ec ti ve l y be en excl ude d f rom covera georf rom ope rati on of the A ct. Geigner al so fil ed a t hird- par t y complaint agai nst Ry an-Reum al le gin g that Geign

er’s si gnature had

been forged on the i ns uran ce a ppl i cation. Virgi nia Surety opposed Gei

gne r’sm otion f or sum mary j udg men t an d f i l ed a c ros s- moti on f or sum mary j udgm en t as to coun

t three of the c omp l ai

nt (res ci ssi

on). In su pp ort of i ts a rgum en t, Virgi nia Su r et y su bmit t ed , amo ng o t he rt hing s, t he de po sit io n t es t imo ny o f Rya n ( t he in sur anc e agen t). Ry an testif ie d that he had provi

ded di ff erent types of

in surance to Geign

er and K risti na over t he pas t several

years an d h ad de alt “e xc lu siv ely” with K risti na. In March

of 2002, Kri stin

a contacted Ry an and info rmed him that she needed a workers’ com pensation policy

for t heir bu siness. Krist ina provided Rya n w it h the i

nf or ma tion nec essary

to prepare the appl ic ation over the phone . Ryan dis cussed wi th K ri sti na the cos t of the in surance wi

th her an d G ei gn er i n cl ud ed i n th e p oli cy

an d w i th he r an d G ei gner exc l ude d f rom the policy . Ryan

knew tha t Kr i sti na wa s f am i l i ar w i th th e e f f ec t of excl us i on because he an d Kri stin a had prev

io us ly di scus se d the m

atte r i n th e c onte xt of a p ri or work ers’ com

pen sa ti on pol i cy , i n wh i ch K ri sti n a a n d G ei gn er el ec ted to be ex cl uded from

coverage. Krist ina in form ed Ry an that she an

d Gei gner we r e t o be ex clu de d f

r o m t he po licy. Ry

an prepared t he appl i cation as di rected and m ail ed i t to Kri sti na f or her a nd G eigne r to si gn. The appl ic ation was su bse qu en t ly

returned to Ry

an i n the m ai l i n a si gned condi

tion. Ry an di d n ot see who signed t he appl i ca ti on in G eig ne r ’s na me a nd de nie d t ha t he o ra me mbe ro f his o ffi ce s igned t he ap plicat ion. Ry an testifi ed that the “ E”, “c” and “ l”w er e add ed to th e a pp l i ca ti on af ter i t h ad b een se n t of f to5

NCC I. Al

though he coul d n ot rem em be r cl ea rl y , Ry an be l i eved tha t sh ortl y af ter th e a ppl i ca ti on had been su b m i tted , h e w as

con tacted b y ph on e to cl arif

y w hether the “

x” m eant that Geigne r a nd Kr istina were to be in

cl uded or excl

uded. Further i n f orm ati on re ga rd i n g G ei gn er ’s si gn atu reon th e app licatio n was pr ovid ed in a request to adm

i t facts. In

re sponse to t he request, Gei gner ackn owledged that Kri stin

a had co nver sat ions with R

ya n regardi ng purchas in

g workers’ compens ation coverage f ort he co rp or at ion. Gei gner asse rt ed, how ever , t hat he did no t sign t he ap plicat ion fo r insur ance and t hat he di d n ot know who did. In supp ort of

i ts m oti on, Vi rgi ni a Su rety also tend ere d the a f

f i da vi t of the un de rwr i ter of t he po licy, Joyce

Jo hnso n. Jo hnso n at t est ed t hat Virg inia Sur et y issued t he po licy with t he und er st anding t ha t Ge ign er an d h is wif

e were to be excl

uded from

coverage. The prem

ium am ount charged was based upo n t hat exclus ion. Jo hnso n at t est ed fu rt her t hat she le arned af ter t he pol ic

y h ad been is sued that Gei gner’s s ign

ature on t he appl

ic ation was n

ot genui ne, and that had Vi

rgin ia Surety known

that Gei gner’s s ign

ature was a forgery, i

t would have reje cted the appli cation f or insuran ce. Af ter con si de ri ng the pleadi ng s a nd al l of t he o t he rdo cu men t s file d in the trial court , the trial j udge gran ted Gei gne r’smotion

f or sum mary j udgm en t and den i ed Vi rgi ni a Surety’ s m

otion . T his appeal followed.

AN AL YSIS Virg inia Sur et y fi

rst ar gue s t hat t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in g r an t ing su mmar y jud gme nt in f av or of Geigner as to co unt o ne (coverage) a nd count t wo (r eim burse ment ) o f t he co mpla int . Vir gin ia Su re ty asse rt s t hat Geigne r e ffect ively excluded himself f ro m cove ra ge u nder t he insur ance po licy and6

under t he A ct a nd thu s w asba

rre d f rom ma kin g a workers’ compen sation cl ai m. Gei gner argues that because Virgi

nia Surety did not not if

y G ei gner that an excl

usi on from

in surance cove

rage al so served to excl ude Geigner f

rom the pr otec ti on of

the A ct, the exc l

usi on wa s i ne f f ecti ve and voi d. See General Cas. Co. of Ill

in ois v . Carroll

Til in g Service, Inc. , 342 Ill . App. 3d 883, 892-897, 796 N .E. 2d 702 , 709-7 13 (20 03). Sum mary judg ment is p ro per wher e, whe n viewed in the light most favo ra ble to t he nonmo vingpart y, the pleadi ngs, depositi ons, admi

ssions, and af

fi davi ts on fi le reveal that t her e is no genu ineissue a s t o a ny mater ial fact a nd t hat t he moving part y is entitled to judgment as a matte r of law. 73 5 ILC S 5/ 2-1 005 (c) (West 200 4); In re Estate o f M

uppavarapu , 359 Ill . App. 3d 925, 928, 836 N.E. 2d 7 4, 76-7 7 (200 5). In appeal s f rom sum ma ry j udgme nt ruli ngs, ourstandard of revi

ew i s de novo. Muppavarapu , 359 Ill . App. 3d at 928, 836 N.E . 2d at 77. The protecti ons of

the A ct autom ati cal l y appl y to certai n b usi ne sse s de clare d to b e e x tr a hazardous. 820 ILCS 305 /3 (West 200 4). An empl oyer in volved i n such a b usin ess, therefore, ma

y purchase an i

nsuran ce poli cy to in sure i ts entire workers' com

pen sat ion li

abili ty. 820 ILCS 305/4(a)(3) (West 200 4); General Cas. Co . o f I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 894, 796 N.E. 2d at 710. Such a pol i cy, howe ver, m u st c ove r al l of the em pl oyee s a nd the en ti re worke rs ’ c om pe ns ati on li abi li ty of the em

ploy er. 820 ILCS 305/4(a)(3) (West 200 4); Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 34 2 I ll. App. 3d at 894, 796 N.E. 2d at 711. Any attempt by a

n in surance ca

rrier to li mi t its li abi li ty, except as provi ded f or in t he Act, is voi d. See 820 ILCS 305 /4( a)( 3) ( West 200 4); Ge ne ral Ca s. C o. of I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 895, 796 N.E . 2d at 711. One such l i m i tation provi de d f

orin the Act appl

i es to ex tra ha zardous bus i ne sse s. A cor porate officer of su ch a bu siness may elect t o w ithd ra w fro m the opera ti on of th e A ct. 820 ILCS7

305 /3 (1 7) (b) (West 200 4); Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 892-893, 796 N. E. 2d at 709. The pro cedure for do in g so is s t at ed in

section 3(17)( b) of the Act, which provides as f ollows: “The corp orate

of f i cers of an y dom es ti c or f orei gn corp orati

on e m pl oy ed by the corpor ation m

ay el ect to withdraw them

sel ves as ind ividua ls f

ro m the o per at ion o f this Act . U po n an elec t ion by t he cor por ate off ic ers to withdraw, wr itt en no t ice shall be pr ovid ed t o t he in surance ca rri er of such el ec ti on to withdraw, which elec t ion sha ll be effect iveupo n re ceipt by

the i ns ura nc e c arr i er of such wri tt en n ot ic e. A corp orat e offi

cer who t hereafter elects t o r esum e coverage under t he Act as an i

ndi vi dual shal l provi de written noti ceof such el ec ti on to the in surance ca

rrier wh ic h el ection sh al l b e eff ective upon recei

pt by t he in surance ca r r ier o f su ch wr it t en no t ice . Fo rt he pu r po se o f t his par agr aph, a " cor

pora te of f i cer" i s def

i n ed as a b on a f i de Pre si den t, Vic e Pr eside nt , S ecr et ar y or Tr eas ur er of a co rp or at ion who vo lun t ar ily

el ects to withdraw.” 820 ILC S 3 05/ 3( 17) (b) (We st 2004 ). A corp orate

of f i cer wh o wi thd raw s f rom the pro tect ion of the Act cannot fil e a clai m f or wo rkers' com pensati on b enef i ts. Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 893, 796N.E. 2d a

t 709. In the pre sent c as e, to dete rm

i ne i f su m mary j udg men t wa s p rope

rl y gra nte d i n f av or of Gei gne r, we m ust determi

ne if Ge igne r e ff

ect ively withdr ew fr om t he o per at ion o f the Act in the appl i ca ti on for insura nce. Absent such a wi thdrawal, the protections of the A ct au t o mat ica lly ap ply to Gei gner and c overage for Geigner m ust b e provi ded f

or in the i ns uran ce pol i cy . See 820 ILCS 305/3, 4(a )( 3) ( West 200 4); Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 894, 796 N.E. 2d at 711.8

Unl ess Ge ign er effe ct ive ly wi th dr ew f rom opera ti on of th e A ct, an y atte m pt to exclud e him from t he prote cti on of the i ns uran ce pol i cy or of th e A ct i s void . See 820 ILCS 305/4(a)(3) (West 200 4 ); Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 895, 796N.E. 2d a

t 711. The exact i ssue b ef ore us i n th i s ca se w as a

ddres sed by the Se cond

Di stri ct Ap

pel l ate Court in Gene ra l Cas. Co . o f Illinois v. Ca rr oll Tiling Ser vice, Inc . I n Gen er al Ca sual ty , th e c orporati

on so ught t o r edu ce it s pr emium cos t s for wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion ins uran ce. Ge ne ral Ca s. C o. of I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 887, 796 N.E. 2d at 705. Pr ior t o be ing injured , t he individual de fendant (t he vice president of the corporat ion) ex ecuted a written form

reque sti ng to be excl ude d f rom coverage under

the c orporati on’ s worke

rs’ com pen sati on pol i cy . Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 I ll. A pp. 3d a t 887 , 79 6 N .E. 2 d a

t 705 . The f

orm wa s enti tl ed “ Il l i noi s W orke rs Com pe ns ati on Be n ef i ts Rej ection F orm,”

bore th e legen d, “ NOTICE TO BUSINESS OWN ERS OR PAR TNERS (emphasis in

original ),” and pro vided as foll

ows: “If you are ei

ther the sole own er of your busi ness or a busin

ess partner, Ill

in ois’ work e rs com

pen sati on l aw au tomati cal l y appl i es to y ou. This m

eans tha t you a re au t o mat ica lly

covered under y

our busin ess workers compensation polic y a nd t ha t your pay roll wil l b e i ncl uded when

wecal cul atethe

pre m i um f or y our p ol i cy . If

y ou do not want to be covered under thi s poli cy , you m ust speci fi cally reject the coverage by signi ng thi s f orm and returni

ng i t t o youragent.” Ge ne

ral Ca s. C o. of

I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 887-888, 796 N.E . 2d at 705. Af ter reviewi

n g th e rej ection f

orm a nd c onstrui

ng th e languag e of

the statute, the a

ppel l ate court fou nd t ha t t he r eje ct io n fo r m did not e f f ec ti ve l y rem ove the i nd i vi dua l de f en da nt f rom the ope rati on9

of the A ct. Ge ne r al C as . Co . o f I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 892-897, 796 N.E. 2d at 709-7 13. In re aching th at c on cl

us i on , the a

pp el l ate court noted th

at the f orm appl ie d only

to in surance cove

rage, did not m en ti on wi th dr aw al f rom th e op er ati

on of th e A ct or re j ecti on of b en ef i ts u n der the A

ct, and was dire ct ed t o a so le pr op riet or or business par t ner (t he in div idua l de fen dant was ne i

ther). General Ca s. Co . o f I llino is , 342 Ill . App. 3d at 892-897, 796 N.E . 2d at 709-713. We do not agree wi

th the Second D istr ict Ap pellat e Co ur t ’s st at ut or y analysis in General Cas ual ty . The re is no r ule o f sta t ut or y cons t ru ct ion which a ut hor izes a c ou rt t o d eclar e t hat t he l egi slature di

d not m ean wh at the p l ai

n l anguag e of

the statute i

m ports. Kunke l v. W al

ton , 179 I ll. 2d 519, 534, 689 N.E. 2d 1047, 1054 (1997). A court is not at lib erty to depart from the p la i n langua ge o f a st at ut e by

reading i nto it except ions, limit at io ns o rco nd it io ns t ha t t he leg isla t ur e d id not ex pres s. Kun

kel , 179 Ill . 2d at 534, 689 N.E. 2d at 1054. Al though the el ection m

ust be i n strict con f orm i ty with the s tatut e, section 3(17)(b) of the A ct merel y requi res that the corpor ate offi

cer take affirmative act ion b y making an elec t ion t o be exclud ed fr om o per at ion o f the Act and t hat t he in surance ca rri er b e n oti f i ed of the el ec ti on in writ ing. 8 20 I LCS 305 /3 (1 7) (b) (Wes t 200 4) . T he sta tute doe s n ot re qui reth at a n y sp ec i al l an gu ag e b e u se d i

n th e e l ec ti on

f orm to opt ou t fro m the ope rati on of the Act an

d from coverag e o f in surance. Nor does the statut e require the i nsuran ce carrier to take f urth er a cti on, upon rece i vi ng th e wri tten n otice , to conf

i rm that t he corporat e off

ic er understands

t hat by opt ingout of coverage of the i nsuran ce policy , he i s gi

vi ng up the right to ma

ke a claim under t he A ct. It w oul d b e i m pr ope r f or th i s C our t to re qui reei th er pa rty to t ake affirmative ac ti on not required

b y th e statu te bef ore t he el ection to withdraw f

rom the operation of the A ct can be ef fecti ve. In t he ca se be for e us , G eigner alleged ly i ndicat ed o n an ap plicat ion fo r insur ance t hat he10

wanted to be ex cl uded f rom c overa

ge of the i ns uran ce pol i cy . If weas su me f or th e p urp ose

of t his particular analysis tha t Geigne r’s signat ur e is valid o r a ut hor ized, and c ons ider ing t he elec t ion in t he co nt ext of wh i ch i t wa s m ad e (a n a ppl i ca ti on for wo rk er s’ co mpensa t ion insur ance ), t he ap pl i ca ti on wo uld be su f f i ci en t un de r th e s tatute

to excl ude Ge i gner f

rom co ve r ag e a nd t o pr o vid e V irg inia Su re ty wit h wr itt en no t ice o f tha t elect ion. See 820 ILCS 305/3(17)(b) (West 2004). No addi tional la nguagei s n

ec es sa ry . N or i s Vi

rg i n i a S ur ety

re qui re d to ta ke af fi rmati ve acti on to confi

rm that Gei gner understood t he co nseque nc es o f his e lec t io n. Co nsid er ed in c o nt ex t , t he ap plic at io n is sufficient to in

dic ate an obj ective aff

irm ative action to eff

ectivel y w ithdraw Ge i gner f rom ope rati on of t he Ac t . I f t he alle ge d s ign at ur e is no t va lid o rno t au t ho r ize d, t he n t he r e is no ev ide nc e o f a v alid ob j ec ti v e a f f i rm ati v e e l ec ti on

to wi th dr aw f rom th e op er ati

on of th e A ct. An is sue of m

aterial fact rem ai ns, however, as t o w het her Geigne r a ct ually made t he elect ion. Vir gin ia Surety has

presented evi

dence to suggest that Ge i gner, or s omeon e w i th a uthori ty to ac t on Geigner’s be ha lf, ele ct ed t o be ex clu de d fr o m thecov er age of t he insur ance po licy and signed t he app licatio n. The app licatio n bear s t he allege d signa t ur e o f Geigne r. R y an (th e i n su ra n ce ag en t) testifi ed t hat Krist ina was famil

iar w ith t he co nseq uenc es o f op t ingou t of c ove ra ge be cau se she and Gei gner had opted o ut of

cov erage i

n a previ ous workers’ compensa

tion i nsuran ce poli cy . Ryan testifi ed f urthe r that he m

ail ed th e app l i cation to Kri st ina for he r a nd Ge igner t o s ign and t hat he re ceived t he ap plicat ion bac k in a signe d co ndit ion. Gei gne r, howe ver, ha s p r es en t ed ev id en ce t o t he co nt r ar y. Ge i gner te sti f i ed tha t he di d n ot sign the applic ation an

d that he does not

know who di d. In addi

tion, Geigner’s posi

tion i s advan

ced by so me of t he evide nce p re sent ed byVi rgi ni a Surety. Virgi

nia Surety’s un

derwriter acknowledged that Geigner’s signature on the appl ic ation f or insuran ce was n ot genui ne. Further, Ry

an testifi ed that11

his o nly contact in thi s case was

Kri stin a. Rya n ne ver expl ai ned the ex cl usi on to Gei gner

or received Geigner’s i

ns truc ti on t o p re par e t he ap plicat ion wit h Geigne r e xclude d. The app licatio n, whi ch was sent out to be si

gned, m erely contain ed an “ x” i n the c olum

n l abel ed, “INC /E XC, ” wit hou t any referen ce to whether Gei

gner was t o be included or exclud ed. The “ E”, “ c” , an d “ l ” w ere wri tten on the a ppl i cation (to com

pl ete the ab bre vi ati on “Exc l ”) af

ter the a ppl i cation had b een

sub m i tted. Thus, an issue o f mate rial fact re mains as t o w het her Geigne r, or so meone authorized to act on hi s b eh al f , actua l l y mad e the e l ec ti on. Be ca

us e a n i ss ueof mate ri al f ac t rem ai ns , i t wa s error f

or t he t rial co ur t t o g ra nt summary judg ment in favor of G eigner as t o c ou nt one (c ove ra ge) and c ou nt two (reim bursem ent) of the compl

ai nt. This cas e mu st b e r em

an de d f or f ur th er pr oce ed i n gsto re sol v e th at iss ue of f ac t. Vir gin ia Su r et y ar gu es ne xt t ha t t he t r ia lcou rt erred i n g ran ti ng Ge i gner’ s m

oti on f or summary judg ment a s t o c ou nt t hre e o f the co mplaint ( re scissio n) a nd in denying Vir gin ia Sure ty’s cross mot ion fo r t he sam

e. Virgi nia Surety asserts that the poli cy was i ssued

based on the m

aterial mis st at ement of G eigne

r or Gei gne r’sagen t that Gei

gne r was to be ex

cl uded f rom i ns ura nc e coverage. As n

ot ed above, in app ea ls fr o m su mmar y jud gme nt rulin gs , o ur st an da r d o f r ev iew is de novo. Muppavarapu , 359 Ill . App. 3d at 928, 836 N.E . 2d at 77. Bef ore werea

ch the meri ts of Virgi ni a Suret y’ s argument, we mustfi rst addr ess Geigner’s con ten ti on t hat Virg inia Sur et y’s claim for r esc ission is t ime barr ed. Sec t ion 1 54 o f the Insuranc e Code providestha

t pol i ci esf or ce rtai n ty pe s of i ns ura nc e s ha l l not be resci nded af ter t he pol ic

y h as been in e ffec t fo ro ne yea ro ro ne po licy t er m, wh ich ev er is less. 215 ILC S 5 /1 54 ( West 200 4) . As Vir gin ia Surety correctl y notes, h o we ve r , t he o ne - yea rlimit at io n o nly ap plie s t o au t o mo bile12

in surance, fi

re and ex tended coverage i

nsuran ce, and al l other poli

ci es of personal

li nes (an y other policy of i nsuran ce i ssued to a natura

l pers on f or person al or fa m i l y protecti on). 215 ILCS 5/154, 143.13 (West 200 4). Th

us , th e on e-y ea r l i m i tati on d oesnot appl y i n the pres en

t case . See 215 ILCS 5/154 , 143.13 (We st 2004 ). Having rejec

ted Ge i gn er ’s ti mel i n es s a rgum en t, w e n ow tu rn to the merits o f Vi

rginia Suret y’s claim for r esc ission. Unde r t he I nsur ance Co de, no misr epr ese nt at ion in awritten i nsuran ce policy appl i ca ti on shal l de feat or avoid the pol

ic y un le ss i t shall h ave b een m

ade wit h act ual int ent t o d ece ive orun les s it mat er ially

aff ects either the ac ceptance of the ri sk or the hazard assum ed by t he co mp an y. 215 ILCS 5/1 54 ( West 200 4); Ra tcl i f f e v . In tern ati ona l Sur pl usLi ne s I ns . Co. , 194 Ill . App. 3d 18, 25, 550 N.E . 2d 105 2, 1 057(19 90) . A

m i sr ep res en tation i n a n a ppl i ca ti on fo r in surance is a st at ement of some

thin g as a f act whi chi s un

true an d af f ects the ri sk un

dertake n b y the i ns urer. Ra t cliffe , 19 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 25 , 55 0 N . E . 2d at 10 57 . A mat er ial mis r ep r es en t at io n w ill v oid t he contract even

though made

through mistake or good fa i th. Ra t cliffe , 194 Ill . App. 3d at 25 , 550 N .E. 2d at 1057. In ot her

wo r ds , it is unne cessary

for the i nsurer to pro ve that a m

is representation was ma de wit h t he int en t t o de ce ive if it wasmaterial to the ri sk a ssu

med. Ra t cliffe , 194 Ill . App. 3d at 25, 550 N.E. 2d at 1057. In the cross-motion f

or summ ary j udgme

nt, Virgi nia Surety argues t hat Geigne r, or so meone who had t he aut hor ity t o a ct on his be half, made a false st at ement in the applic ation f

or insuran ce that Gei gner wa s to b e e xc l

ude d f rom the ope rati on of t he Act , a nd

t hus, fro m insuranc e co ver age . T he f ac ts presented bef

ore t he trial

cou rt, however, do not suppor t Virgi nia Surety’s conten

tion. Geigner ei the r m ad e (or au thor ize d) th e e l ec ti on o rdid no t mak e ( o rau t ho r ize ) t he ele ct io n. T hu s, t he r e is no in di ca t io n t ha t Ge ign er mad e a fals e s t at eme nt in t he ap plic at io n fo rinsu r an ce , an d V irg in i a13

Surety ’sclai

m f or resc i ssi on m ust f ail . The t rial court , therefore, properly gran ted Geign er’s m ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

n t as t o co unt three of the compl

ai nt (rescis si on) and deni

ed Vi rgi ni a Surety’ s cros s m

otion f or the s am

e. It i s of no consequenc e that the tr ial cour t seems to have based its entire ruli ng on the inef

fectiv eness of t he wit hdr awa l form. In r eviewing a t rial co ur t ’s gr ant of su mmary judgment , w e may affirm the trial court’s deci sion on a ny ground i n the rec ord, rega

rdless of w hether the tri al

courtrel i ed on that gr ou nd or whether the trial

court ’s reasoni

ng wascorrect. I llino is St at e Ba r Ass 'n Mut . I ns. C o. v. Coregis Ins. Co ., 355 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 15 6, 163, 8 21 N.E. 2 d 706, 7 12 (20 04). For th e foregoin

g reasons, we reverse

the judgm

ent of the Ci

rcuit Court o f W

il l C oun t y gr ant ingG ei gn er’s m

ot ion f or summ ary j udgme

nt as to co unt one (coverage) and count two (re i m b ur se men t) of t he co mplaint, affirm the jud gment o f t he Cir cu it Co ur t o f Will Co unt y gra nt ing Geigner’s moti on

f or sum mar y j udgm en t as to co un t th re e (re sc i ss i on) of

th e c om pl ai n t, affirm the judg ment o f t he Cir cu it Cou rt of W i l l Cou nty de ny i ng Vi rgi ni a Su rety ’s cros s- moti on

f or sum mary judg ment as

to co unt t hre e o f the co mplaint, and r emand t his case for furt her pr oc eed ings co nsist ent wi th thi s order. Reversed i

n part and af

fi rmed i n part; case rem

anded. LYTTO N, P. J. a nd O ’BR IEN, J. c oncu

r.