Source: https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/motion-11-defendant-s-motion-to-dismiss-in-car-accident-case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:02:39+00:00

Document:
Judge & James, Ltd., Jeanne M. Zeiger, One of the Attorneys for Defendant, Universal Underwriters Insurance, Company.
FARMERS has filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Other Relief seeking declarations that UNIVERSAL, under policies of insurance issued to automobile dealerships is obligated to pay for property damage to the dealers' vehicles caused by permissive users of said vehicles who were insured by FARMERS.
Illinois law does not require permissive users to be insured under owner's policies for damage to the owners vehicle; to the contrary, the financial responsibility law requires coverage insuring the oead permissive users for injury to or destruction oP f ( 625 ILCS 5/7-203 5/7-317 (b)(3)) and further specifies that the requirements shall not apply to the driver or owner of a vehicle involved in an accident in which no damage was caused to the person or property of any one other than such driver or owner (625 ICS 5/7-202(8)).
users are not insureds under the terms of UNIVERSAL's liability Coverage Part.
The coverage sought is specifically excluded under UNIVERSA liability Coverage Part.
Permissive users are not insureds under the terms of UNIVERSA's physical damage Coverage Part.
1. Illinois law does not requrere permissive users to peinsured under owner's oicies for damage to the owner's vehicle.
In State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Universal Underwriters Group (1998) 182 1.2d 240 695 N.E.2d 848 . the Illinois Supreme Court held that a permissive user of an automobile owned by an auto dealership was an insured under the dealership's auto liability policy in a case involving personal injuries to occupants of another vehicle. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Mandatory Insurance Act ( 625 ILCS 5/7-601 (a)) requires vehicles to be covered by a liability insurance policy” and that the definitions in § 7-317 of the Financial Responsibility Act ( 625 ILCS 5/7-317 ) apply throughout that code.
However, State Farm v. Universal, supra, involved personal injuries to the occupants of another vehicle. In contrast, the instant case involves only property damage to the dealer's vehicle, and the provisions of the Mandatory Insurance Act and the Financial Responsibility Act do not require permissive users to be insureds under the owners policy where the only damage is to the owner's vehicle.
“5/7-203. Requirements as to policy or bond.
5/7-202. Exceptions to requirements of security.
Accordingly, the Financial Responsibility Act specifically provides that the requirements regarding insurance coverage do not apply to the driver or owner of a vehicle where, as here, the accident has resulted in no injury except to the property of the owner.
The Financial Responsibility Law clearly provides that a motor vehicle liability policy shall insure the owner and permissive users for damage to “property of others” Accordingly, under the statute's plain and unambiguous terms, it does not require coverage for damage to the property of the named insured.
“Other. Different or distinct from that already mentioned; additional, or further...” Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979).
Under the plain and unambiguous terms of the statute the definition of an owners policy requires such a policy to insure the named insured and any permissive users for damage to “property of others” and thus specifies by its own terms that the policy need not insure permissive users for damage to the owner's property.
In construing a statute a court should evaluate the statute as a whole and give undefined words their ordinary and popularly understood meaning, reading the relevant language within the context of the entire provision of which it forms an integral part. Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw (1998) 182 Ill.2d 262, 269, 695 N.E.2d 481, 485; Garner v. City of Chicago (1st Dist. 2001) 319 III.App.3d 255, 263, 744 N.E.2d 867, 872 .
Here, the ordinary and popular meaning of the term “property of others,” following the requirement that the policy insure the named insured and permissive users, demonstrates that the legislature intended that the policy need not insure the property of the named insured.
Moreover, courts should evaluate the statute as a whole and construe it so that no term is rendered superfluous or meaningless. Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw (1998) 182 Il.2d 262, 269, 695 N.E.2d 481, 485 . Acceptance of FARMERS' position would read the words “of others” out of the statute and render those terms superfluous or meaningless. If the legislature had intended a liability policy to insure for damage to the property of the owner or of any person using it with the permission of the named insured, the legislature need not have included the phrase “of others” but would merely have required a limit of 515,000 for damage to “property”; instead, the legislature specified that the policy shall insure the named insured and permissive users for damage to property “of others.
In addition, § 7-202(8) ( 625 ILCS 5/7-202 (8)) [the requirements shall not apply to the driver of owner of a vehicle involved in an accident where no damage is caused to the person or properly of any one other than such driver or owner] addresses the same subject matter as § 37(b)(3). Accordingly, the statutes should be interpreted as in pari materia and an interpretation which gives effect to both provisions must be adopted. Anderson v. Chicago Board of Election Commissioners (1st Dist. 1996) 284 IIl.App.3d 832, 672 N.E.2d 1 259, 1261 .
Accordingly, Illinois law does not require permissive users to be insured under an owner's policy for damage to the owner's vehicle. To the contrary, the Financial Responsibility Law requires coverage insuring the owner and permissive users only for injury to “property of others” and further specifies that the requirements do not apply to the driver or owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, where, as here, there is no damage to property other than that of the owner.
2. Permissive users are not insured under the terms of UNIVERSAL's garage liability Coverage Part for damage to the owner's vehicle.
FARMERS' cites subsection 4 above in claiming that Mark Wilder, Cecilia Butler and Carol Jones qualify as insureds under the policy. However, as discussed in section 1 above, these parties are not “required by law” to be insured with respect to damage to the owner's auto. Where Illinois law does not require these parties to be insured for the alleged accidents which solely involved injury to the owners' vehicles, these parties simply do not qualify as insureds under the liability Coverage Part of UNIVERSAL's policy.
Accordingly, permissive users are not insureds under the liability coverage of UNIVEVERSALs policies for damage to the owners' vehicles.
3. The coverage sought is specifically excluded under UNIVERSAL' policy.
Similar exclusions have been upheld by Illinois courts. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Kohen (3d Dist. 1981) 98 Ill.App.3d 860, 424 N.E.2d 992; Western States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Standard Mutual Ins. Co. (2d Dist. 1960) 26 III.App.2d 378, 167 N.E.2d 833 .
“Typically, liability coverage includes damage to property owned by someone other than the insured. The purpose of the clause in issue is to exclude from liability coverage damage to property of the insured. The justification for the exclusion for this kind of exposure from automobile liability insurance was given in Parry v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1930) 228 App. Div. 393, 395, 240 N.Y.S. 105, 107 The limitations relate to property in which the insured has either a general interest or a special interest. As to such property both frequency of accident and the opportunities for fraud create a high hazard and make the risk undesirable, at least at a rate charged for the ordinary coverage.' The exposure excluded in the liability coverage may be separately insured under physical damage (collision) coverage.” 98 Ill.App.3d at 862-63 .
Similarly, here, the exclusion is intended to afford permissive users (where local law requires said persons to be insured) the same coverage as would be afforded the owner, namely, no liability coverage for damage to his own vehicle.
Accordingly, the coverage sought is excluded under the plain and unambiguous terms of UNIVERSAL's liability coverage and there is no public policy bar to enforcement of this exclusion.
4. Permissive users are not insured under the physical damage Coverage Part of UNIVERSAL's policies.
Permissive users simply do not come within the definition of “who is an insured” under UNIVERSAL's physical damage coverage.
The facts alleged by FARMERS regarding the underlying claims constitute constructive bailments in that the dealers delivered vehicles to the drivers who accepted the vehicles for some purpose other than that of obtaining ownership and who returned the property in damaged condition. Fuller 's Car Wash, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. (2d Dist. 1998) 298 Ill.App.3d 167, 173, 698 N.E.2d 237, 242; AmericanAmbassador Cas. Co. v. City of Chicago (1st Dist. 1990) 205 Ill.App.3d 879, 881-82, 563 N.E.2d 882, 884: see Couch on Insurance 3d § 156:91 (1998) [customer using dealerships vehicle was not an insured under dealership's physical damage coverage.] Here, under the plain terms of the physical damage Coverage Part, there is no coverage under UNIVERSALs policies for permissive users or their insurers.
Moreover, there is no statutory requirement in Illinois that auto policies include physical damage coverage or that permissive users be insured for physical damage coverage when the policy does provide such coverage. Rather, physical damage coverage is an optional firstparty coverage of indemnity to the owner and a permissive user has no insurable interest in said coverage. See Western Motor Co., Inc. v. Koehn (Kan. 1988) 748P2d851.
UNIVERSAL's policy language distinguishes the instant case from Western States Mutual Jns Co. v Standard Mutual Ins. Co. (2d Dist. 1960) 26 Il.App.2d 378 . 167 N.E.2d 833 . In that case, the policy itself defined permissive users as insureds for property damage liability coverage and contained no definition of who is an insured with respect to collision coverage. Thus, the court in Western States v. Standard, upheld the application of an exclusion similar to that in UNIVERSAL's liability coverage to preclude liability coverage for the permissive user but held that the owner's insurer could not subrogate against the permissive user for its collision coverage payments because the permissive user was an insured under the policy.
Here. UNIVERSAL's policy provisions are different in that the liability coverage does not include permissive users as insureds, and the collision Coverage Part of UNIVERSAL's policy specifically defines insureds so as not to include permissive users. Moreover, the preamble to UNIVERSAL's policy specifically states that each Coverage Part constitutes a separate contract of insurance.
Permissive users are simply not insureds under either UNIVERSAL's liability or physical damage Coverage Parts.Hence, UNIVERSAL cannot be subrogating against its own insured.
Accordingly, permissive users are not insureds under the physical damage coverage of UNIVERSAL's policies nor are they insureds under the liability coverage of said policies. Hence, UNIVERSAL may properly assert its subrogation rights against the permissive users.
5. Plaintiff's claim for statutory penalties, costs, interest and attorneys fees is inappropriate.
In addition to declaratory relief, FARMERS seeks a judgment in the form of a penalty of $25,000 for each claim plus costs, interest and attorneys fees plus an award of its costs incurred herein.
However, this request is inappropriate where UNIVERSAL has merely asserted a legitimate policy defense based upon the express wording of the policy and llinois statutory and case law. Scudella v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. (1988) 174 Ill.App.3d 245 . 252, 528 N.E.2d 218 . Under the express wording of UNIVERSAL's policy, as well as Illinois statutory and case law, permissive users are simply not insureds under UNIVERSAL policy.
WHEREFORE, Defendant UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for Declarator Judgment and Other Relief with prejudice, to deny Plaintiffs request for penalties, costs, interest and attorneys fees, and to further enter a specific written finding that no just cause exists to delay either enforcement or appeal or both from said order or judgment of dismissal.

References: v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 § 37
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 156
 v. 
 v. 
 v.